In custody disputes, the child's welfare is paramount; visitation rights from a court cannot be altered without appropriate proceedings, and allegations must be substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

The petition in hand filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in essence, seeking directions to the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and to restrain respondent No.5 (father of petitioner No.2) from exercising visitation rights granted vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune, on the grounds of threat, harassment and apprehension of kidnapping.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) The petitioner No.1 - mother is a divorcee and a single parent, presently having the lawful custody and care of petitioner No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘minor child’). The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 - father was solemnized on 08.07.2010 and out of the wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born on 01.12.2011. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune. As per the terms of settlement, permanent custody of the minor child was granted to the mother, i.e. petitioner No.1 (herein) while respondent No.5 – father (herein) was accorded visitation rights subject to stipulated conditions.

(ii) Pursuant to the decree, the parties initially complied with the aforesaid arrangement. Petitioner No.1 (herein), who is employed with Indian Bank, was transferred in May 2023 to Chandigarh and duly informed respondent No.5 (herein) of her residential address and the school particulars of the minor child. In June 2023, respondent No.5 also shifted to Panchkula and informed petitioner No.1 of his residential address for the purposes of visitation.

(iii) Petitioner No.1 alleged that during visitation in July 2023, the conduct of respondent No.5 towards the minor child (petitioner No.2 herein) was improper and in violation of the settlement terms. Upon return from visitation on 03.07.2023, the minor child allegedly exhibited signs of fear and distress and disclosed that he had been kept at a place other than the disclosed residence and was subjected to harassment, neglect and threats. It is alleged that such conduct caused severe mental trauma to the minor child rendering him reluctant to meet respondent No.5 thereafter.

(iv) The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.5 continued to harass petitioner No.1 at her residence and workplace and despite objection raised by the petitioners, forcibly attempted to exercise visitation rights. On 05.08.2023, petitioner No.1 submitted a complaint to SHO, Police Station, Sector 5 , Panchkula (respondent No.4 herein) seeking protection; however, no effective action had been taken.

(v) On 09.08.2023, during an alleged attempt by respondent No.5 – father to meet the minor child, an altercation took place at a public bus stop in Panchkula, wherein it is alleged that respondent No.5 manhandled the mother of petitioner No.1, a senior citizen, and attempted to forcibly take the custody of the child. Consequent thereto, petitioner No.1 submitted another complaint dated 10.08.2023 to respondent No.3 seeking protection and restraining respondent No.5 from forcibly meeting the child.

(vi) It is further alleged that despite repeated complaints, no preventive or protective measures were taken by the official respondents. The petitioners assert that the minor child has since remained under severe fear and anxiety and has stopped attending the school. He is also apprehensive of being forcibly removed from the lawful custody of petitioner No.1.

It is in th