A child cannot be used as a tool by the custodial parent, a Delhi Court recently observed in a custody battle between an estranged couple. .After interacting with the child, Family Court Judge Anil Kumar prima facie observed that the child was influenced by the mother. “I have interacted with the child. It is stated by the child that he doesn’t want to meet his father because he didn’t answer his calls earlier. Apart from this, there is no other complaint or allegations against the father,” stated the order..According to the father, the family court had granted him visitation rights to his child in the court premises. However, it was alleged that the mother was not complying with the court’s directions. He claimed that the wife was continuously tutoring and brainwashing the child against him in a bid to develop a hostile and inimical attitude in the mind of the child..Considering his arguments, the court highlighted that the child was “entitled to love and affection of both parents”.“In these circumstances, when there is a clear refusal of the respondent to allow the child to meet with the father, there is no other option except to grant the child’s custody to the petitioner for a few days,” it said.The court, as a result, handed over the custody of the child to the father for two days while making it clear that the police may assist in the process if the direction is not adhered to. .The plea for child's custody stemmed from a contempt petition filed by the father. He faces a domestic violence case filed by his estranged wife, who was allowed to be paid a monthly sum by the husband as an interim reprieve in December 2022. .Advocate Abhimanyu Kumar and Tripaksha Litigation represented the father.Advocate LS Gautam appeared for the mother.
A child cannot be used as a tool by the custodial parent, a Delhi Court recently observed in a custody battle between an estranged couple. .After interacting with the child, Family Court Judge Anil Kumar prima facie observed that the child was influenced by the mother. “I have interacted with the child. It is stated by the child that he doesn’t want to meet his father because he didn’t answer his calls earlier. Apart from this, there is no other complaint or allegations against the father,” stated the order..According to the father, the family court had granted him visitation rights to his child in the court premises. However, it was alleged that the mother was not complying with the court’s directions. He claimed that the wife was continuously tutoring and brainwashing the child against him in a bid to develop a hostile and inimical attitude in the mind of the child..Considering his arguments, the court highlighted that the child was “entitled to love and affection of both parents”.“In these circumstances, when there is a clear refusal of the respondent to allow the child to meet with the father, there is no other option except to grant the child’s custody to the petitioner for a few days,” it said.The court, as a result, handed over the custody of the child to the father for two days while making it clear that the police may assist in the process if the direction is not adhered to. .The plea for child's custody stemmed from a contempt petition filed by the father. He faces a domestic violence case filed by his estranged wife, who was allowed to be paid a monthly sum by the husband as an interim reprieve in December 2022. .Advocate Abhimanyu Kumar and Tripaksha Litigation represented the father.Advocate LS Gautam appeared for the mother.
