Kerala High Court: In a matrimonial appeal filed by the mother of a minor child, against the order of the Family Court granting the visitation rights to the father, Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and P.M. Manoj, JJ., while dismissing the appeal, said that love and affection from both parents is essential for the welfare of the child and that only in extreme circumstances should one parent be denied contact.
Background
The father is a sailor in the Merchant Navy and sought custody and a declaration of guardianship of his minor daughter, claiming his rights as the father.
The Family Court by the impugned order, refused to grant the father full custody or appoint him as the guardian of the child, but allowed him specific visitation rights and limited custody during his leaves from the Merchant Navy. Dissatisfied with these provisions, the mother appealed the Family Court’s decision, arguing that the child’s welfare was not properly considered in granting overnight and vacation custody to her
Contention of the Mother
The mother argued that granting visitation and temporary custody rights to the father, who is often away at sea for extended periods, was detrimental to the child’s well-being. It was also highlighted that the child had experienced psychological distress due to the father’s aggressive behaviour and that such interactions could harm her emotional stability.
Contention of the FatherThe father argued that the child deserved to maintain a relationship with both parents and that denying the father any contact rights without justifiable reasons would be against the child’s best interests. It was further pointed out that the Family Court’s decision to grant limited visitation and temporary custody was reasonable and aimed at ensuring the child retains a bond with both parents.
Decision and Analysis
The Court analysed the submissions and background of the case and engaged with both parties and the minor child to understand the child’s perspective and well-being better, and noted that the child expressed reluctance towards overnight stays with her father but did not oppose daytime visits.
The Court referred to Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67, that stresses the paramount importance of the child’s welfare in custody matters. The Court further highlighted that decisions should not be hindered by technical objections but should focus on the best interests of the child, and that it was necessary for a child to have the love and care of both parents, provided neither parent is proven unfit.
The Court concluded that the Family Court had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that its decision balanced the need for the child to maintain a relationship with both parents while prioritizing her welfare and found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s order.
Additionally, the Court stressed the importance of parents presenting a united front for the child’s well-being and avoiding actions that could create an environment of emotional distress for the child.
The Court stated, “Parents often engage in constant conflicts and hostile behaviour towards each other, inadvertently convincing the child that the other parent is the antagonist… It is crucial for parents to recognize the detrimental impact of their disputes on their children.“
The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s order that granted visitation and temporary custody rights to the father during his leaves from the Merchant Navy. The Court reiterated that the primary concern in such cases is the welfare of the child, which includes maintaining healthy relationships with both parents.
[X v. X, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2446, decided on 24-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocates for the Appellant: Praveen K. Joy, Fathima Shalu S., Ardra Anil, Albin Varghese, Abisha E.R., Anupama Nair, Adithya Lal, T.A. Joy, E. S. Saneej, M.P. Unnikrishnan, N. Abhilash, Deepu Rajagopal
Advocates for the Respondent: Advocate N.M. Madhu, Advocate C.S. Rajani