Recently, in a family dispute that reached the Bombay High Court during vacation, Justice S.G. Dige Jamsandekar refused to interfere with a family court’s interim order granting a father temporary custody of his minor son, rejecting the mother’s demand that the father’s mother be excluded from the home during the child’s stay.
The case arose from ongoing divorce proceedings between the estranged couple, who had earlier signed consent terms allowing the father two hours of supervised access every Saturday at the family court’s child complex. Subsequently, the family court had permitted the father interim custody from October 17 to October 23, prompting the mother to file a petition challenging the order.
Appearing for the mother, counsel argued that she had reservations about the extended overnight access and that her condition, requiring the father’s mother not to be present in the house during the child’s stay, was “reasonable and in the child’s interest.” It was also contended that the child was unwilling to stay with his father and that the family court had overlooked the child’s preference.
In response, the father termed the condition “most unreasonable,” submitting that he could not be expected to exclude his own mother from her residence merely to comply with the visitation order. He alleged that the mother’s suggestion was intended to frustrate the arrangement and informed the Court that he had already “lost five days of access” because of her non-cooperation.
After examining the record, Justice Jamsandekar found no procedural or factual infirmity in the family court’s order. The Bench observed that the lower court had “considered all the facts and circumstances” while granting access to the father. Dismissing the petition, the Court held, “I find no substance in any of the grounds of the petition and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.”
The Court thus affirmed that the mother-in-law’s mere presence in the household cannot be a ground to curtail the father’s court-sanctioned access to his child, particularly when such access has already been evaluated and permitted by the family court after due consideration.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
