The Gujarat High Court has firmly rejected a father's attempt to summon his 16-year-old son as a witness to prove his wife's alleged adultery, holding that a child cannot be used as a pawn in a marital dispute and that the child's welfare must take precedence over any evidentiary advantage.

Justice M. K. Thakker dismissed the father's petition, which challenged an order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Gandhinagar, on July 30, 2025. That order had refused the father's application to examine his minor son as a witness in a criminal miscellaneous application arising from the couple's matrimonial proceedings. The father claimed that the boy was an eyewitness to an illicit relationship between his mother and another man, Gunvantji Somaji Thakor, and that his testimony was essential to establish the defence of adultery.

The High Court, however, found no infirmity in the family court's decision and underscored the grave psychological harm that could result from dragging a child into the acrimony between his parents. The court observed that the boy, who is studying in Class IX, would suffer long-lasting effects on his personal and educational future if made to testify against his mother.

Child's Welfare Paramount in Marital Battles

Justice Thakker noted that the father's own case revealed that the child had been residing with him, and that the alleged illicit relationship had already led to community action — villagers had instructed the man involved not to enter the village for six months. These circumstances, the court said, only heightened the risk of emotional damage to the child.

"The child in question, who is studying in standard IX, if allowed to be a witness in the battle of the husband and wife, would gravely affect the mind of the child," the court observed.

The judgment explicitly rejected the father's contention that the son's evidence was indispensable. "A child cannot be used as a pawn to show that mother of the child was living in adultery as it is always open for the husband to prove it through other evidence," the court stated.

Dignity of the Mother Must Be Protected

The court further emphasised that the mother's reputation and dignity, in the eyes of the child, were interests that deserved protection. "In addition to that, in the mind of a child, the reputation and dignity of the mother is required to be protected," Justice Thakker wrote.

These observations were grounded in the principle that the best interest of the child is a paramount consideration in any proceeding involving parental conflict. The court made it clear that no litigant could be permitted to weaponise a child's testimony to gain an advantage in a matrimonial dispute, especially when alternative means of proof were available.

The father's advocate, Karan Vyas, had argued that examining the child was necessary to meet the ends of justice. But the court found that the father had already placed on record an agreement executed in the presence of village people regarding the alleged adultery, which could serve as evidence without requiring the child's involvement.

Court Upholds Family Court's Prudent Decision

The High Court agreed with the family court's reasoning that summoning the child would have a long-term effect on his mind and his educational future. The family court had dismissed the father's application under Exhibit 24 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1074 of 2024, and the High Court's dismissal of the father's petition means that order stands.

"No error is committed by the learned Court in disallowing the application," Justice Thakker concluded.

The court also noted that the defence of adultery could be established through other evidence, such as the agreement executed before the village community. This alternative evidence, the court indicated, made the child's testimony both unnecessary and potentially harmful.

The petition, which had sought a writ of certiorari to quash the family court's order, was dismissed in its entirety. Rule was discharged, and the interim relief sought by the father was not granted.

The ruling reinforces the judiciary's consistent approach of shielding children from the crossfire of parental disputes, particularly in cases involving allegations of adultery. Legal experts say the judgment sends a clear message that the emotional and psychological well-being of a child will take precedence over any litigant's desire to gather evidence, even in proceedings where the stakes are high.

The father now faces the prospect of continuing his matrimonial litigation without the testimony of his son, and the case will proceed before the Family Court in Gandhinagar on the merits of the existing evidence.