Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Amit Kaushik - Appellant
Versus
Kavita - Respondent
CM(M) 175 of 2012, CM Appl. 20553 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim custody orders are issued based on the child's welfare. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner argues for modification due to child's age and mother's inaction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. consideration of the child's best interest can lead to order modification. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. petition disposed; prior visitation order continues temporarily. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17th January, 2012, whereby the following directions were issued:
"30. For the reasons recorded above, this application is allowed. The respondent is directed to hand over interim custody of the minor child to the petitioner. The order dated 24.9.11 directing visitation is no longer continued. However, this order be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall produce the minor child in court for visitation of the respondent on the first, third and fourth Saturday and every second Monday of the month between 2.00PM to 5.00PM till further orders,
(b) Since the minor child is 3 years old the petitioner shall take all necessary measures to ensure the education of the child by getting him admitted in a school commensurate to the age of the minor child and the status of the parties,
(c) The respondent will be at liberty to move this court seeking variation of this order if the circumstances to protect the interest and welfare of the child so warrant."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact at the time when this order was passed the child was aged around three and half years old. The child is now 14 years old and studying in Arwachin International School in the 9th standard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the mother has lost all interest and had not been coming forward to meet the child.
3. Sh. Tejasvi Malik, advocate appears on behalf of the respondent-mother and submits that he has been engaged recently.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this court considers that after passing of this order, 10 years have already passed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court vide its order dated 13th February, 2012 stayed the operation of the impugned order and thereafter this Court vide order dated 15th September, 2012, passed the following orders:
"ORDER
% 15.09.2012
Having heard both the parties in person and their counsel, jointly and separately, as also having observed the behaviour of the child, it is felt that for the time being the child should remain in the custody of the petitioner. However, the visitation and meeting rights of the respondent Kavita with the child need to be maintained so as to strengthen bonds of love which the child which has been lost because of her not meeting for about one year.
In these circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner will take the child on every working Saturday ftom 2 pm to 5 pm at Medication Centre, Karkardooma District Court, where respondent Kavita would be allowed to have free access and meeting with the child. The time between 2 pm to 5 pm would not be rigid in the sense that it would be flexible depending upon the wish and convenience of the child. However, that would be under the observation of the Incharge, Mediation Centre, Karkardooma District Courts.
This is only a temporary arrangement and this arrangement shall be reviewed after two months on the next date and in case of any special circumstance or any change required in this temporary arrangement before the next date of hearing, depending upon how the things move, the Incharge would be at liberty to modify this arrangement and for this both the parties shall be free to approach the Incharge and seek her advice.
Renotify on 06.12.2012."
6. Subsequently, this order was slightly modified vide order dated 11th March, 2014 whereby the respondent-mother was permitted to continue to meet the child on every Saturday from 1.00 to 5.
Custody orders are interim and must adapt to the evolving interests of the child, emphasizing the paramount importance of the child's welfare in family law matters.
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody and visitation decisions, and the court may modify visitation rights based on the child's comfort and the totality of circumstances.
Custody orders are not permanent; the welfare of the child is paramount in custody and visitation matters.
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, necessitating a balance between parental rights and the child's safety during visitation.
The paramount principle in family law is the welfare of the child, necessitating structured supervision in visitation rights amidst allegations of emotional distress and tutoring by a parent.
While considering custody/interim custody of minor child welfare of minor child is paramount.
The court declined to modify interim visitation rights because the appellant failed to utilize the existing court-ordered visitation opportunities, thereby negating any claim of urgent necessity for ....
The welfare of the minor is paramount in determining visitation rights, and modifications must be evidence-based to ensure the child's safety and emotional stability.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
