Father Entitled To Visitation Rights But Shouldn't Disrupt Child's Schooling, Physical, Moral, Emotional & Intellectual Development: Madras High Court
The wife had approached the Madras High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing the father to meet his minor daughter at a place which was far away from the wife's residence.
While modifying an order granting visitation rights to a father, the Madras High Court has held that the father is entitled to visitation rights, but at the same time, it should not disrupt the child's schooling, physical, moral, emotional and intellectual development.
The petitioner/wife had approached the High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing the father to meet his minor daughter at a place which was far away from the wife's residence.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Jothiraman held, “The Court has to ensure visitation rights to the biological parents in a manner known to law. When the custody of the child is entrusted to one of the parents, well being of the child should be taken into consideration while granting the right of visitation to another. Welfare of the child alone is of paramount consideration while dealing with cases pertaining to grant of visitation rights. No doubt the respondent / father is entitled for visitation rights, but at the same time, it should not disrupt the child's schooling, physical, moral, emotional and intellectual development.”
M/s.K.Sumathi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate K.Chandru represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The wife had filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce and also for the grant of a sum of Rs 75,00,000 towards permanent alimony as per Section 25 of the Act. When the case was pending, the respondent/husband filed an application under Section 26 seeking grant of visitation rights to him to see his minor child and the same was allowed partly by the Court below with a direction to produce the child at the Child Care Centre attached to the Family Court at Chennai on the first and third Saturdays of every month with certain conditions. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/wife filed the petition before the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts, the Bench found that the minor child is with the mother/revision petitioner and the petitioner is residing at Hosur and working in Bangalore. In order to facilitate the respondent/father to comply with the order of visitation passed by the Court below, the petitioner/wife has to travel from Hosur to Chennai along with her 8-year-old minor female child.
“In cases involving minor child particularly visitation rights or welfare matters, the Court's paramount consideration should be to secure the best interest of the child. The Court's primary concern is to ensure that the child's physical, emotional and psychological well being is not disturbed. The child interest take precedence over those of the parents/guardians. The Court has to consider the child's age, needs and requirements. The Court also should assess the ability of the parents to provide suitable environment. Age of the child, maturity and her wishes to be taken into account”, it stated.
The Bench further highlighted that Article 51-A of the Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Duties, more particularly Clause (k) says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the ages of six and fourteen.
Considering the fact that the female minor girl child is aged about 8 years and her needs and well-being are of utmost importance, the Bench asserted, “This Court has to carefully consider the child's best interest and to take a decision promoting her welfare and development. Considering the age of the child, physical and psychological hardship she would face, if she is permitted to travel from Hosur to Chennai in order to facilitate the respondent's visitation rights as per the order of the Court below and also the apprehension of threat expressed by the respondent/father, this Court is inclined to modify the condition imposed by the Court below.”
The Bench thus modified the order to the effect that instead of the petitioner/wife and the minor girl child travelling from Hosur to Chennai, the respondent/father shall have the visitation rights to see his minor child at the Child Care Centre attached to the Family Court at Krishnagiri. “In all other aspects, the order of the Court below remains unaltered”, it concluded.
Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: CRP.No.3407 of 2023)