Child Has Right To Co-Parenting By Both Parents, Deprivation Will Cause Severe Dent In Child's Personality: Delhi High Court
The Court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a 79 year old father in law in a rape case.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a child has a right to co-parenting by both parents and that its deprivation will cause severe dent in the child's personality, while granting anticipatory bail to an 79-year-old man accused by his daughter-in-law of sexual misconduct.
The Bench criticized the Investigating Officer for claiming the accused failed to co-operate despite issuing only unrecorded "verbal notices" without producing any Case Diary, holding that such conduct failed to inspire confidence. The Court further observed that while post-Arnesh Kumar there is a trend of levelling allegations of heinous sexual misconduct in matrimonial FIRs to circumvent arrest restrictions, courts must examine each case on its individual factual matrix without generalizing that all such allegations are true or false.
A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “The proper perspective is that it is the child who has right to coparenting through both parents. Such deprivation, as is being observed in this case, will cause severe dent in the personality of the child, which they have to understand. They also have to understand that at some future stage, in such situations the custodial parent is perceived by the child as devil, who kept the child away from non-custodial parent.”
Advocate Ajit Sharma appeared for the applicant Hitesh Vali, APP appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, a case was registered on April 29, 2026 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, where Sections 354, 354A, 376 of the IPC and Section 74 of the BNS were added later against the applicant. The complainant alleged that he harassed her, once asked her to massage his legs and tried to make her touch his private part, and in May 2022 forcibly pushed her on a bed. The applicant says the allegations were made to pressure his son into settling matrimonial disputes.
The Court had passed three earlier orders, expressing concern for the complainant's three-year-old child, whose custody was given to her husband in Canada by the Ontario Court of Justice. That order has not been challenged. The complainant sought an adjournment as the Ontario matter is listed on October 27, 2026 for settlement efforts, but the Court declined given the old pendency.
The Court found that the investigating officer first claimed repeated notices, then said they were only verbal, and produced no case diary. It further noted that the complainant is educated, the alleged acts date to May 2022 or earlier, the FIR was lodged in 2026, no specific date was given, and family photographs showed the parties together.
It added that these observations are only for anticipatory bail and the trial court will decide on evidence. It rejected the flight-risk plea, noting that other family members being in Canada is not a ground to deprive liberty.
“Merely because remaining members of his family are settled in Canada, the accused/applicant cannot be deprived of liberty in a situation of the present nature. The apprehension expressed by prosecution side that the accused/applicant is a flight risk is without any cogent basis. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for complainant de facto that wife of the accused/applicant fled the country subsequent to her having assaulted the complainant de facto, though that was prior to registration of the present FIR. Even that cannot be a ground to penalise the accused/applicant, who is aged about 80 years”, the Bench further noted.
Cause Title: Harcharan Singh Bhalla v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8403)
Appearances:
Applicant: Ajit Sharma, Ashutosh Senger, Sukrti Gupta and Kanchan Singh, Advocates, appeared for the applicant.
Respondent: Hitesh Vali, APP, with IO/SI Krishan Pal Singh, Varun Mehlawat and R. S. Juneja, Advocates.