P&H HC Units Apart Trial Courtroom’s Order Denying Youngsters Custody To Mom Relying On Infidelity Allegations
The Punjab and Haryana Supreme Court last week overturned a court order denying the mother custody of the children based on allegations of infidelity against her.
Judges’ bench Sudhir Mittal noted that, with regard to Section 17 of the Guardian Act as well as Section 13 of the Minority Act, the minor’s welfare is the most important consideration for the Court to consider when appointing a guardian.
The bank also observed
“Children are innocence personified. For their ideal development it is important that the time of innocence is cherished and protected. However, this remains a pipe dream in which parents meet.”
Facts in brief
The marriage between the parties was celebratory on May 3, 2008 and a male child, Lakshin, was born on July 16, 2009 (currently 11.5 years old) and a female child, Tiana, was born on March 13, 2017 born (around 04 years old). .
The parents / parties were separated on February 16, 2019 and the woman claimed she had been thrown out and was not allowed to take the children while the husband claimed she had left the family.
Wife-mother preferred a petition under Sections 7, 10, and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 in May 2019, which filed a Section 12 petition for provisional custody.
The said application was rejected on the basis of a contested decision dated February 5, 2020, but she was allowed to meet the underage children.
Friend of the court report
The court appointed an amicus curiae to report that the children miss their mother’s company and that Lakshin, who is older, is being indoctrinated against his mother. Even so, he was keen to meet his mother and enjoyed her company.
Comments from the Court
The Court found that both parties made allegations and counter-allegations. In her application for guardianship, the petitioner’s wife / mother argued that the interviewed husband / father was a perverted person.
In the response provided by the interviewee, he alleged that the petitioner’s wife / mother was supersexual and extramarital and that she did not have the means to raise the children.
However, the Court found that the allegations made by both sides could not be taken into account at this stage as they were not supported by evidence.
The Court also found that
“The Court of Scholarly Trials rightly observed this in passing the contested order, but it appears that it was still influenced by the allegations against the mother, which are a perversity that needs to be corrected.”
Also, taking into account the mother’s qualifications, the Court found that she was a well educated and qualified woman and had the means to support her children.
In the light of the detailed report of the learned Amicus Curiae, the Court also concluded that the best interests of the children are in the care of their mother.
As a result, the Tribunal ordered
“Tiana is under 05 years of age and in terms of Section 6 (a) of the Minorities Act, her best interests would definitely be in the mother’s care. Lakshin cannot be separated from his sister as the same thing would traumatize them both.”
Therefore, the contested decision of the court was overturned and it was ordered that custody of the minor children be transferred to the petitioner within 07 days.
The interviewee was given the right to visit the petitioner’s home on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of each month between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.
Case title – Megha Sood versus Amit Sood [Civil Revision No.1402 of 2020 (O&M)]
Click here to download the order