A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, expressed concern over a trend in which parents—despite being educated—who are involved in marital disputes are tutoring or influencing their minor children. The Court observed that rather than aiding the child’s welfare, such conduct actually causes irreparable harm to the child’s personality, emotional growth, and self-confidence.
The matter in question arose from a mother’s petition challenging an interlocutory order from the Family Court. The interlocutory order granted the father unsupervised visitation rights on the first and fourth Saturdays of every month, from the same starting time, for three hours each visit. The husband filed a contempt petition alleging that the mother interfered with the visitation—specifically by continuing to hold the child’s hand during visits at a mall—thus obstructing the father’s exercise of his visitation rights.
A Counsellor’s report showed that the child was “very much comfortable” in the father’s presence, played and interacted without hesitation, though the child displayed separation-anxiety when the mother left the visitation room and insisted on her presence during sessions. A Child Psychologist’s report added that initially, the child seemed uncomfortable with the father’s presence but gradually warmed up, becoming more receptive and able to accept gifts etc. It was also noted that the child remained clingy toward the mother, and that the mother appeared reluctant to leave the child alone during interaction sessions. The mother contended that given the child’s tender age of about five years, the discomfort and dependence on her presence meant that compelling unsupervised interaction with the father would run contrary to the child’s welfare. The father, conversely, argued that the existing reports demonstrated progressive comfort with him, and that greater or more independent interaction would be in the best interest of the child.
In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that in disputes of custody or visitation, the welfare and best interest of the child are the paramount considerations, not the competing rights of the parents. The Court noted the established legal position that a child of tender years requires love, affection, and guidance from both parents, and that the estrangement of parents ought not to deprive the child of emotional security and a healthy environment provided by continuing relationship with both mother and father.
After considering the reports, the Court found that the impugned visitation order (unsupervised visitation by the father on specified Saturdays) was consistent with the welfare of the child and was intended to promote a healthy relationship with both parents. The Court held that there was no need to interfere with the order as issued. The Court also indicated that any future modification in visitation arrangements could be considered by the Family Court in light of evolving needs of the child or changing circumstances.
With respect to the father’s grievance of obstruction by the mother, the Court noted that this was a matter of implementation of the visitation order and so should be addressed in the Family Court. The parties were thus directed to seek appropriate remedies before the Family Court if enforcement or modification of the visitation order becomes necessary.
In summary, the Court emphasized that educated parents engaged in marital conflict bear even greater responsibility to avoid involving children in that conflict. Parental influence or tutoring of children in disputes was strongly condemned. The Court upheld the visitation arrangement granted to the father, finding it aligns with the child’s best interest, while leaving room for further adjustments should the child’s welfare demand it.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.