Acrimonious Relationship Of Parents Not Valid Ground To Deny Attempt At Re-Establishing Bond Between Mother & Minor Child: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that a mother cannot be denied the chance to re-establish a bond with her ten-year-old child solely because of an acrimonious relationship with the father.
The Court emphasised that the role of the Family Court is not only to adjudicate disputes but also to facilitate their resolution. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of the Family Court.
“Clearly, the bond between the petitioner and the minor child has been broken for reasons that I need not deliberate on or state in the order. However, at the same time, this again cannot be a ground to deny even the visitation rights to the petitioner qua the minor son…The learned Family Court is not to act as an adjudicatory forum alone, but is also to act as a facilitator to secure settlement of disputes. The Family Court ought to adopt a different approach from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings”, Justice Navin Chawla observed.
Advocate Vikram Singh Jakhar appeared for the Petitioner, and Advocate Vinay Kumar Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
A Civil Miscellaneous Application was filed by a mother challenging the order of the Family Court, whereby the Court denied the custody of the minor child (10 years old) to the Petitioner.
The Court noted that, the Petitioner had filed three FIRs against Respondent no. 1 (Petitioner’s husband) and his family members, and one FIR has been filed by Respondent no. 2 against the Petitioner and her family members. The impugned Order stated that the Family Court had spoken to the minor child, who refused to talk to or stay with the Petitioner.
The Court emphasised the importance of prioritising the child's best interests over the parents' interests in such matters. The Court observed that the child's welfare generally involves receiving love and affection from both parents, even if they are at odds with each other.
“It is to be remembered that in such matters, it is the interest of the child which is paramount and has to be first borne in mind rather than the interest of the warring parents. The interest of the child would generally lie in receiving the love and affection from both the parents, though they may be warring with each other. In the present case, the learned Family Court has proceeded in haste in dismissing the claim of the petitioner for custody of the minor child, without first exploring means and ways to re-establish the bond between them”, the Court noted.
Therefore, the Court noted that the Family Court acted hastily in dismissing the Petitioner's custody claim without exploring options to mend the parent-child relationship. The Court observed that the Family Court's role is to adjudicate disputes and facilitate their resolution, hence, a different approach is required than that in ordinary civil proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court directed the Family Court to determine the appropriate methods and modes for the Petitioner to establish a bond with her child, including visitation rights. The Court noted that the decision made by the Family Court, based on this exercise, could result in unsupervised visitation or custody being granted to the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Rajesh Kumari v Dhiraj & Ors. (2023:DHC:6299)
