HC disturbed by mother’s possessiveness of child; upholds father’s visitation rights

The Bombay High Court has said it is disturbed by a woman’s possessiveness over her child in denying visitation rights to her estranged husband, stressing that the presence of both parents in a child’s life is of great importance.

Whatever may be the discord between a couple, the child should get the love of both parents, a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said in an order passed last week.

The court was hearing an application filed by the man seeking access to his minor son during the summer vacation. It ordered the woman to hand over custody of the child to him for five days during the summer holidays.

The man, in his plea, said his estranged wife had agreed before the family court to allow visitation rights to the child during the holidays, but later refused and was also not allowing him to see his son during the weekends, as agreed between them.

The court noted a “possessiveness” in the mother who is in custody of the minor child, and also that the child has been referred to a psychologist for counselling.

The bench said it found this “disturbing”, as if the child had been permitted to enjoy the company of both his parents, probably there would be no need for him to be referred to a psychologist.

“We are of the view that the presence of both parents in the life of the child is of great significance, which assists the child in developing into a healthy individual,” the HC said.

In the present case, the child, who is eight years old, is in the formative years of development, and in such a situation, if his mother imbibes into him that it is not healthy for him to be in his father’s company, then the child would carry that fear forever, it observed.

“Whatever may be the discord between the parents, in our view, a child must get the love of both, the father and mother,” the court remarked.

The HC said it was disturbing that the woman was not abiding by her own undertaking to the family court by which she agreed to provide the child’s access to his father every weekend.

“The more she (mother) resists this arrangement, the more the child will move away from the father, and this is precisely what we want to avoid,” the bench said.