The Tripura High Court, in its recent ruling, balanced the rights of the parents with that of children in a child custody battle, giving proper consideration to the child's welfare. The Court stressed the importance of visitation and video call rights to maintain the parent-child relationship and ensure the child's happiness and stability.
Facts of the Case:
This petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner and respondent were married and had a daughter. The respondent abruptly left their matrimonial home on 27-05-2022, leaving their 4-and-a-half-year-old daughter behind. Police informed the petitioner on 06.06.2022 that the respondent voluntarily left and had no intention of seeking custody. Later, the respondent initiated a DV Act case for custody, resulting in an ex-parte order in her favor. The petitioner contested, explaining the situation. The Trial Judge revoked interim custody, allowing visitation rights, but the respondent filed an appeal, leading the Appellate Court to grant custody to the mother. The petitioners argue that the order is illegal and doesn't consider facts and DV Act provisions.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners argued that the Order of the lower Court was “perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law”. They contend that the Court failed to appreciate the facts and relevant law concerning interim custody of a minor girl.
It is further argued that the Court below did not thoroughly examine the written objection filed by the petitioners and that it overlooked the power granted under the DV Act for temporary custody, which should be exercised only when the Court deems it necessary.
The petitioners sought redressal and requested the impugned judgment to be set aside.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court found that the trial judge made an error in substituting their satisfaction when dealing with temporary custody without valid reasons. The Appellate Court's judgment was also criticized for not adequately considering the child's welfare, as the mother had no source of income and had left the child with no concern. The Court pointed out that the mother never sought visitation rights, although it was offered, suggesting her concern for the child might be insincere. Several documents were submitted showing the mother's actions, which the Court considered while determining custody.
The appellate Court although mentioned that the welfare of the child has to be given more weightage over the rights of the parents but failed to explain how the custody of the minor child would be better taken care of by the mother respondent when she has no source of income to maintain herself.
The Court concluded that the mother was not appropriate for the child's custody, and the child's best interests were not properly considered. It emphasized the child's well-being, psychological balance, and the importance of both parents in the child's life.
The High Court propounded that in the context of high-conflict divorce and custody battles, the child, unfortunately, becomes the primary casualty, caught in a legal and emotional tug-of-war between parents. Regrettably, custody agreements often prioritize parental interests over the child's well-being, which is why the Court held that, "The issue in a child custody dispute is what will become of the child, but ordinarily the child is not a true participant in the process. While the best interests principle requires that the primary focus be on the interests of the child, the child ordinarily does not define those interests himself or does he have representations in the ordinary sense."
The Court recognized the need for contact rights and video calls to maintain the parent-child relationship. It stressed that child custody cases should prioritize the child's welfare, and visitation and custody arrangements should be made to ensure the child's happiness and stability.
The Court concluded by saying, "an order of custody of minor children either under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is required to be made by the Court treating the interest and welfare of the minor to be made by the Court treating the interest and welfare of the minor to be of paramount importance."
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court modified the custody order, allowing both parents to share custody based on a specific schedule, including school days and holidays, and sharing expenses related to the child's education and medical needs. The judgment was delivered considering the child's best interests and ensuring both parents' active involvement in the child's life.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice T. Amarnath Goud
Case no.: Crl. Petn. No. 22 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: B. N. Majumder, S. Lodh, and B. Paul
Advocate for the Respondent: P. Roy Barman and S. Bhattacharjee
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
