The Delhi High Court recently stayed a Family Court’s order granting visitation rights to the putative father of a 2½ years old child on a daily basis. In his order, Justice Yashwant Varma observed,
The order ultimately passed requires the minor child of 2½ years to be moved out of the residence and be taken by the respondent for a period of 2 hours on a daily basis. The Principal Judge has clearly failed to weigh or consider the disruptive and deleterious impact that this may have.
The Bench added,
It is apparent that the court proceeded on the incorrect path of seeking to consider and evaluate the competing rights of parents to be accorded custody and/or granted rights of visitation.
The above claims which are raised by competing parents must necessarily be recognized as being subservient to the interest of the child which has always and consistently been recognized as being paramount.
Case:
The development comes in a civil miscellaneous main preferred by the mother of the child against the Family Court’s order permitting the Respondent-father to take the child out of her care during 6pm. and 8pm daily.
Family Court
The Family Court had taken note of the fact that both the Petitioner and the Respondent were living in the same building.
Mother Moved High Court
While denying this fact, the petitioner-mother moved the High Court arguing that Respondent is not residing there since many months and is now taking the 2-year-old outside to various unknown and undisclosed locations on the strength of the Impugned Order which is creating havoc on the schedule of the minor child.
She further submitted that a putative father is not akin to a biological father under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and that the routine of the mother and the child cannot be subjected to such a strict, onerous and unreasonable regime.
No Marriage Between Parties
Before the Family Court, the petitioner had argued that since the respondent-father has denied the marriage, therefore the child is illegitimate and according to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 he is not entitled for the custody of the child and therefore, visitation rights also cannot be granted to the respondent.
On the other hand, the respondent had admitted the birth of the child, though he stated that no valid marriage between him and the petitioner took place. Thus, he had not denied the paternity of the child and had admitted in the application that the child belongs to him.
Delhi High Court
Stating that the matter requires consideration, the Delhi High Court has listed the case for hearing for January 7, 2022. The order read,
Till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of the order dated 28th October, 2021.
ALSO READ –
READ ORDER | Karnataka High Court Upholds Shared Parenting Order By Family Court; Lays Down Guidelines For Non-Custodial Parents
Bombay HC Allows Access Between Father & Son After Divorced Mother Withdraws Shared Parenting Consent
Greece Adopts Shared Parenting Law Amidst Opposition From Human Rights & Women Rights Organisations
READ ORDER | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Custody Of Son To Father After Child Was Found In Sonipat Instead Of London As Informed By Mother
READ ORDER | Police Officials To Face Action If Arrest Procedure As Per ‘Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar’ Guidelines Violated: Telangana High Court
ALSO WATCH –
#EXCLUSIVE | Interview With Chairperson: National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights, India
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
