Love and affection of both parents is considered to be the basic human right of a child.
Bombay High Court: Stating that the welfare of the minor cannot be determined on the sole parameter of the work commitment of one parent and availability of ample time with another, Bench of N.J. Jamadar and S.S. Shinde,jj., expressed that,
Courts often ensure that even if custody is given to one parent, the non-custodial parent has adequate visitation rights.
Instant petition was filed for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the son of the petitioner, who had been allegedly illegally kept away from the petitioner by respondent 2- wife of petitioner and immediate transfer of custody of son to petitioner.
As per petitioner, respondent 2 was extremely busy with her professional commitments and has not been able to devote any time for parenting and development of minor son. In contrast, petitioner had decided not to accept any professional commitment and devote his entire time, effort and attention to bring up the son.
Habeas corpus can also be pressed into service for granting the custody of a child to a spouse if the welfare of the child so dictates.
Who should be given custody?
To determine the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the primary consideration is the welfare of the minor and not the legal rights of the parents, statutory or customary.
Parents at loggerheads
Parameters for determination of the proper custody for a minor, when the parents are at loggerheads are well recognised.
Legal rights of the parents yield to the paramountcy of the welfare of the child
Bench referred to the decision of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, wherein the Supreme Court articulated factors, which weigh-in, in determining the question of custody of a minor child.
Supreme Court’s decision of Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413, was also referred to, wherein the consideration for determination of the proper custody of a minor child were succinctly postulated.
In view of the above decision, Bench noted that the welfare of the minor is a broad and elastic term.
Every factor which bears upon the development of the child, must enter into the decision of the Court. Court is called upon to deal with a human problem with a humane touch.
Tender Years Rule
Bench stated that the said rule has been recognised under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which provides that in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, father, and after him, the mother shall be the natural guardian; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother.
Coming to the present facts and circumstances, Court expressed that it is imperative to note that having regard to the age of the son, tender year rules, which has statutory recognition, get attracted and thus cannot be brushed aside lightly in evaluating the “welfare principle”.
In Court’s opinion, the issue of welfare of the minor cannot be determined on the sole parameter of the work commitment of one parent and availability of ample time with another.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court found no exceptional circumstances which warranted a departure from “tender years rules”, nor there was such material which prima face indicated that the custody with mother was detrimental to the welfare and development of the son.
Lastly, while concluding, the Court stated that the minor son needs love, affection, care and protection of both, petitioner and respondent 2.
Love and affection of both parents is considered to be the basic human right of a child. Thus, the element of the access of the child to a non-custodial parent assumes critical salience.
Courts often ensure that even if custody is given to one parent, non-custodial parent has adequate visitation rights.
High Court stated that for the development of the son, it would be necessary to allow the physical access of father to son at least twice a week.
Directing for daily access through video conference for half an hour and physical access twice a week of minor son to petitioner, the present petition was disposed of. [Abhinav Kohli v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal WP No.225 of 2021, decided on 30-09-2021]