Telangana Excessive Courtroom Insists On Granting In a single day Custody To Every Dad or mum
“A parent cannot be a guest in their child’s life. If visiting rights are only granted for limited hours, it may not be enough for the child to have a comfortable time with the father or mother, whoever the case,” noted the Telangana High Court recently.
The Court also noted that “overnight custody” should be promoted where possible. It watched
“Just meeting and lingering with the parent for a few hours in courthouses, hotels, theaters, shopping malls, parks, etc. under the supervision of another parent or relative is not for visiting purposes as the child is under psychological pressure and will not be comfortable.”
The remarks were made by a bench of judges T. Amarnath Goud in a contempt case filed against violation of a family court custody decision.
In this case, the petitioner’s husband and the respondent’s wife had a child named Agastya. The two were no longer in a marital relationship and denied custody of their child. Vide order of December 13, 2019 had ordered the family court:
“The custody of the child lies with the father and mother as follows:
(i) Sunday evening from 4 p.m. until Friday morning, the father has custody of the child.
(ii) The mother picks up the child from school on Friday and hands over custody of the child to the father on Sunday at 4 p.m. after lunch.
This agreement applies to the first three weeks of each month and the father has custody of the child for the remaining weeks to spend time with the child in the final weekends.
(iii) From January 2020, custody will be shared equally between both parents during all holidays.
(iv) If mutually agreed, both parties are free to bring the child together to a location of their choice during the holiday or on another day.
This arrangement was made because the child was almost a year away from the father and had custody for only 43 days in the past two years.
This agreement will be made by the end of the summer vacation. Thereafter, the parents are free to take appropriate steps before the family court in the event of a change in custody of the child. “
The present petition, filed by the father in the Telangana Supreme Court, alleges that the respondent violated clause (iii) of the above order. He also alleged that the interviewee took inappropriate photos of his child by taking the child to Nilofer Hospital at midnight and testing the child’s private parts for COVID-19, grossly violating COVID-19 norms.
The plea goes on to say that the respondent had lodged complaints with various police stations that the petitioner had committed immoral acts against the child, which, under the law, constitute serious violations. After the police carried out their investigation, these complaints were found to be false.
Attorney Nagesh Reddy, attorney for the petitioner, further stated in the plea that the respondent gave the 6-year-old child a cellphone and taught him to send her certain messages in secret in order to involve the petitioner and his family. The child had done this innocently without knowing the consequences of his actions.
In response to these allegations by the petitioner, the respondent denied having taken these steps and refused to return the child to the petitioner’s care in his own interest, fearing that the petitioner might commit homosexual acts on him. In defense of her actions, the interviewee stated that she took the child to the hospital and made audio and video recordings and that his private parts were only photographed in the child’s interest.
The Tribunal made a number of observations in this case. They first examined the child’s movements and came to the conclusion that the child is not afraid of the petitioner. The Respondent had informed the court that she had not taken the child back into the petitioner’s care because she believed that the petitioner’s negligent actions would result in the child developing COVID-19. In this context, however, the Court has ruled
“It is also strange to accept the mother’s behavior, that on the one hand she seeks protection from the corona virus because she did not send the child to his father, on the other hand she took the child to police stations, to the hospital, to keep his private parts and made serious allegations against the father for sexually assaulting the child. ”
They further stated: “It is surprising to believe the mother’s version that on the one hand she says she is more concerned with the child’s welfare and tries to keep the child away from the father and on the other hand she is ready to continue custody Both pleas contradict each other and their point of view is inconsistent. ”
The court ruled: “A parent cannot be a guest in their child’s life. If visiting rights are granted for limited hours, it may not be enough for the child to have a comfortable time with the father or mother, whoever they are may be. ” Case. The bigger the gap, the faster the bonds will be broken and the child will be confused and end up believing this. ”
The court found the respondent guilty of contempt. However, since she unconditionally apologized and prayed for forgiveness, the court went indulgent against her.
The court also gave the respondent and the petitioner the following instructions on joint custody of his child:
(i) In order to win one another, the parents are not allowed to use the child as farmers against one another.
(ii) Parents should not poison the child’s mind. The child is not allowed to have a cell phone. He can only use the mobile phone under parental guidance.
(iii) Both mother and father have equal custody of the child while on vacation. If the mother and child intend to travel nationally or internationally during the holidays, the father must make their travel and residence arrangements and bear all of these costs.
(iv) The parties are strictly prohibited from taking obscene photos or videos of the child, as well as audio recordings. All existing photos, CDs and videos should be destroyed and may no longer be used.
Click here to download the order