Children from broken homes get affection and care of both parents so indispensable to their balanced growth and upbringing
Merely because a child says he does not want to see his father's face is not a ground for denying a man fighting a divorce battle access to his son, the Bombay high court has ruled.
''It is no use for the child who has been brought before a judge or a counsellor to merely state that he would not want to meet his father or see his face,'' said Justice Roshan Dalvi. ''An oral case that the father was not attached to the children, was harassing them or spoiling their reputation would not suffice. The father must be made out to be so thoroughly despicable that no child could be expected to see his face,'' added the judge.
The judge's observations came in a case where one city resident, had moved the court following an unfavourable order against her for not complying with orders to allow her estranged husband to meet their minor son.
The court was informed that she avoided getting her son to the family court complex twice a month on Saturdays when her husband was allowed to meet their son for an hour. The judge said that if a mother-in total breach of court orders-was allowed to argue that though she cajoled her son, he resisted attempts to meet his father, ''the orders of the court would be a complete mockery''.
''No order of access could be worked out upon the mere say of a custodial parent,'' said Justice Dalvi. The court has now given one last chance to her to comply with the court orders. She was ordered to meet a child counsellor at Muskaan, TISS, along with her husband and decide a venue where the father can meet his son on the first and third Saturday of every month. The court warned her that failure to bring her son on even a single day would result in her defence being struck off.
The judge also emphasized the importance of child counselling in custody battles, saying the aim was that ''children from broken homes get affection and care of both parents so indispensable to their balanced growth and upbringing''.
''It is no use for the child who has been brought before a judge or a counsellor to merely state that he would not want to meet his father or see his face,'' said Justice Roshan Dalvi. ''An oral case that the father was not attached to the children, was harassing them or spoiling their reputation would not suffice. The father must be made out to be so thoroughly despicable that no child could be expected to see his face,'' added the judge.
The judge's observations came in a case where one city resident, had moved the court following an unfavourable order against her for not complying with orders to allow her estranged husband to meet their minor son.
The court was informed that she avoided getting her son to the family court complex twice a month on Saturdays when her husband was allowed to meet their son for an hour. The judge said that if a mother-in total breach of court orders-was allowed to argue that though she cajoled her son, he resisted attempts to meet his father, ''the orders of the court would be a complete mockery''.
''No order of access could be worked out upon the mere say of a custodial parent,'' said Justice Dalvi. The court has now given one last chance to her to comply with the court orders. She was ordered to meet a child counsellor at Muskaan, TISS, along with her husband and decide a venue where the father can meet his son on the first and third Saturday of every month. The court warned her that failure to bring her son on even a single day would result in her defence being struck off.
The judge also emphasized the importance of child counselling in custody battles, saying the aim was that ''children from broken homes get affection and care of both parents so indispensable to their balanced growth and upbringing''.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment