O R D E R

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

05.03.2021, passed on I.A.Nos.6 & 8 in G&WC No.98/2019 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 seeking for custody of the child ‘Baby Shinora’ in G&WC No.98/2019 on the file of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner filed objections to the main petition. Respondent No.1 filed applications in I.A.Nos.6 & 8 seeking permission to have access to his daughter via video call and sought a direction against the petitioner to provide user ID / video call ID / mobile number, etc. to have access to his child which is in the custody of the petitioner. The said applications were opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. The Family Court after hearing the parties, allowed the applications filed by respondent No.1. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order. He submits that the respondent No.1 is alcoholic and is always at his intoxicated state and is undergoing alcohol de-addiction treatment. He submits that permitting to access the child through user ID, etc., amounts to interfering with its privacy by a third person. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Respondent No.1 filed a petition to dissolve the marriage between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner. Matter was referred to mediation. Compromise petition was filed on 01.10.2018, and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was dissolved. A baby girl namely Shinora was born out of the wedlock on 07.06.2012 and respondent No.1 being the biological father of the baby girl, petitioner has not allowed him to meet his daughter with an intention to prevent him from meeting the child. Respondent No.1, the biological father, has got every right to access his daughter and petitioner cannot prevent the father from meeting or from accessing his daughter.

7. The basic human right of the minor is to have the love and affection of both parents. A young child cannot be denied the care, affection, love or protection of either parent, solely because the parents are at wit’s end with each other. A child is not a shuttle cock to be fossed between the father and mother as this may have traumatic and psychosomatic effect on the child. It is important that minor does not lose the social, physical and psychosocial contact with this parent who is not in interim custody. It is in the best interest of the child for the parents to equally share the parental responsibility while determining the best interest of the child.

8. the trial Court considering the above aspect, permitted the respondent No.1 to access his daughter as prayed for in the application. The trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.