SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Vinay Joshi, J.
Kamlesh Ramesh Jibhkate – Appellant
Versus
Seema Kamlesh Jibhkate – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2818 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Kamlesh Ramesh Jibhkate, Advocate, Alok Daga, Advocate

The best interest of the child and the impact of frequent changes on the child's well-being are central legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Child Custody - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - The court discussed the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The key legal provisions highlighted include the grant of limited visitation rights and the best interest of the child. The court's decision was influenced by the tender age of the child and the impact of frequent changes on the child's well-being.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-father challenged the interim order granting limited access/visitation rights to the child during the pendency of the custody application. The couple got married in 2018 and had a child in 2019. The father filed for divorce and custody, while the wife filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The father sought visitation rights due to the child's medical condition, which the wife opposed due to the child's tender age.

Finding of the Court:

The court partially allowed the petition, granting the father and his parents three hours of visitation on Mondays at the Family Court until the custody application is decided. The rest of the prayer was rejected, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the custody application expeditiously.

Issues: The main issues were the father's concern about the child's medical treatment and the wife's opposition to overnight custody due to the child's tender age. The court also addressed the bitterness between the couple and the limited access provided at the Public Garden.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the best interest of the child, the impact of frequent changes on the child's well-being, and the tender age of the child in granting limited visitation rights. The court emphasized the need for expeditious decision on the custody application.

Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, granting limited visitation rights to the father and his parents at the Family Court. The Trial Court was directed to decide the custody application expeditiously.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - Petitioner-father raises a challenge to the interim order dated 11.05.2022 (Exh. 14), whereby the Trial Court has granted limited access of the child during the pendency of custody application. The Trial Court has granted limited access/visitation rights to the father on every Sunday between 04.00 p.m. to 06.00 p.m. at Public Garden, which is impugned herein.

2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. The couple got married on 23.11.2018 as per Hindu Customary Rites. They were blessed with a male child on 21.09.2019. Due to matrimonial differences, petitioner-father has filed Hindu Marriage Petitions for divorce and application for custody of child under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. As against this, wife has filed application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking multiple reliefs as available under said Act. In custody application, the husband has filed application (Exh. 14) seeking interim relief of visitation rights which was partially rejected by the Trial Court which is the subject matter of this petition.

3. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-wife. At the inception, it is to be noted that the interim order is under challenge, meaning thereby the application for custody is still pending, wherein evidence is yet to be recorded. The petitioner has filed interim application primly on medical ground. It is his contention that the minor child has developed a medical condition called as 'Robin Pierra Sequence' which is birth defect. The minor child was treated at various hospitals for the deficiencies. On 15.07.2020, Cleft Palate surgery was done by Dr. Dinesh Sarda. According to the petitioner, the respondent-wife is not giving proper medical treatment and taking care of the child. The petitioner has expressed fear that if child is not treated properly, he may develop a speech deficiency in future. The petitioner would submit that joint parental care is necessary for the well being of the child. The petitioner by amendment, has prayed for grant of weekly visitation rights from Friday Morning to Sunday Evening for the practice of language and speech therapy. On the other hand, while resisting petition, the respondent would contend that she has given proper treatment to the child. According to respondent, having regard to the tender age of child, it is not in the interest of child to give his overnight custody during pendency of the application.

4. It is petitioner's main grievance that wife is not giving proper medical treatment to the child. On 07.12.2022, it was asked to the petitioner that he can suggest a name of Doctor of his choice so that the wife could be directed to bring the child at concerned place. However, the petitioner replied that as per advise of Dr. Dinesh, there is no requirement of medical treatment, but the child would be cured, by parental sharing, which is recorded by this Court.

5. The petitioner is not coming with a specific case that he intends to take treatment of a child at particular hospital or with particular Doctor, but he says that parental sharing is the mode for recovery. Similar prayer of overnight visitation rights was made before the Trial Court, but it was refused on the ground that the child was barely 29 months old, living with his mother from last seven months. The Trial Court expressed that considering age of child, it is not proper in the interest of child to hand over frequent overnight custody to the father.

6. On date, the child is merely three years of age and for near about last one year child is living with his mother. Having regard to the tender age and the deficiencies faced by the child, it is not appropriate in the interest of child to hand over frequent overnight custody of a child. The husband is staying at Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara with his parents. If during pendnecy, child is asked to stay at different atmosphere for two whole days, it may have a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top