MUMBAI: Observing that a parent suffering from mental illness is not per se disqualified from custody unless it is shown to endanger the child's welfare, a sessions court dismissed a man's plea to take custody of his 16-year-old son. The man had filed an appeal against a magistrate awarding custody to the mother.
"...It is evident that the magistrate interacted with the child, considered the best interest and welfare of the minor, and directed the parties to undergo mediation before passing the order. The magistrate, while granting temporary custody, considered the curriculum course of the child and the natural affection of the mother in the right prospect," the judge said.
The judge said it is well settled in matters of custody that a minor's welfare is paramount and not parents' legal rights. "...The minor is nearing adulthood, and the order is only for temporary custody...The magistrate did not commit any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference."
The mother had filed a complaint against the father under Domestic Violence (DV) Act in 2022. In March and April this year, orders were issued granting temporary custody of the son to the mother till May 15, and the father was directed to present him in court in Mumbai every month after visitation. A production warrant was also issued following the father's alleged failure to produce the child.
The father's counsel said the magistrate's order was passed without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The appeal also said the lower court failed to prioritise the child's welfare, who was already in the father's care in Patna, where he is studying in Class 11. The father's counsel questioned the magistrate's jurisdiction under DV Act to issue such custody orders and said there was no change in circumstances warranting a transfer of custody. Concerns were also raised about a potential trauma to the child due to the sudden change in custody without proper assessment.
The mother's advocate highlighted the father's alleged non-compliance with the initial custody order and that he filed the appeal only after the production warrant was issued. Allegations regarding the mother's mental health were dismissed as unsubstantiated and defamatory, with a medical report presented as evidence of her sound mental state. The court was also told that the father had previously filed a transfer application before the chief metropolitan magistrate, which was rejected in Dec 2024, and that he had not complied with similar custody directions in the past.
The sessions court found no evidence to support the father's claims that the magistrate ignored the child's academic commitments or that the mother has a mental illness.
"...It is evident that the magistrate interacted with the child, considered the best interest and welfare of the minor, and directed the parties to undergo mediation before passing the order. The magistrate, while granting temporary custody, considered the curriculum course of the child and the natural affection of the mother in the right prospect," the judge said.
The judge said it is well settled in matters of custody that a minor's welfare is paramount and not parents' legal rights. "...The minor is nearing adulthood, and the order is only for temporary custody...The magistrate did not commit any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference."
The mother had filed a complaint against the father under Domestic Violence (DV) Act in 2022. In March and April this year, orders were issued granting temporary custody of the son to the mother till May 15, and the father was directed to present him in court in Mumbai every month after visitation. A production warrant was also issued following the father's alleged failure to produce the child.
The father's counsel said the magistrate's order was passed without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The appeal also said the lower court failed to prioritise the child's welfare, who was already in the father's care in Patna, where he is studying in Class 11. The father's counsel questioned the magistrate's jurisdiction under DV Act to issue such custody orders and said there was no change in circumstances warranting a transfer of custody. Concerns were also raised about a potential trauma to the child due to the sudden change in custody without proper assessment.
The mother's advocate highlighted the father's alleged non-compliance with the initial custody order and that he filed the appeal only after the production warrant was issued. Allegations regarding the mother's mental health were dismissed as unsubstantiated and defamatory, with a medical report presented as evidence of her sound mental state. The court was also told that the father had previously filed a transfer application before the chief metropolitan magistrate, which was rejected in Dec 2024, and that he had not complied with similar custody directions in the past.
The sessions court found no evidence to support the father's claims that the magistrate ignored the child's academic commitments or that the mother has a mental illness.
You may also like
Michelle Obama says she takes therapy as she's transitioning to a new phase amid divorce speculations
American woman amazed by Bengaluru's jaw-dropping late-night delivery game; Zepto joins the fun
People should be ready for any eventuality: Haryana Minister on mock drills
Keir Starmer rules out U-turn on winter fuel payment cut for millions of pensioners
Mystery over Brit, 34, who vanished in Amsterdam after leaving pals moments before flight
