“Even if the mother is less capable financially, she becomes no less competent to ensure the welfare of the child, and the father will still be under an obligation to ensure the financial well-being of the child.”
In a consequential judicial pronouncement, the Delhi High Court undertook a modification of the visitation rights accorded to the father amidst an ongoing family dispute. Expressing dissatisfaction with the antecedent Family Court decree rendered on 22-09-2022, which stipulated joint custody with primary custodianship vested in the mother and visitation privileges extended to the father until the child attains majority, the mother sought redress.
The High Court, convened with Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, concurred with the essence of the Family Court’s decision but introduced nuanced adjustments to the father’s visitation entitlements. Presently, the mother is enjoined to ensure the child’s presence in the Family Court’s designated children’s facility on specific Saturdays, coupled with a mandate for regular telephonic communication between the father and the child. This revised regimen is intended to persist until the child reaches the age of majority.
The genesis of this legal imbroglio dates back to 2009, marked by the parents’ estrangement and the award of custodial rights to the mother. Subsequently, the father initiated legal proceedings asserting his claim to shared guardianship, citing alleged deficiencies in the mother’s caregiving. The appellate process, triggered by an incident in 2016 resulting in the father’s loss of visitation rights, featured the mother’s emphasis on the father’s non-compliance with child support obligations spanning three years. The Court acknowledged the mother’s uninterrupted custodianship since the child’s age of two and underscored the absence of a robust paternal-child bond.
Addressing the child’s aversion to paternal visitation, the Court underscored the evolving significance of the child’s preferences as they mature. Despite the father’s superior financial standing, the Court discerned no substantiation of the mother facing financial hardships.
The Court emphasized that financial considerations, while relevant, do not singularly dictate custody determinations, underscoring the shared parental responsibility in meeting the child’s multifaceted needs. Acknowledging the father’s lapse in child support obligations, the Court lauded the mother’s custodial efficacy and affirmed her continued custody. Notwithstanding, the visitation rights underwent modification, permitting an overnight stay every first Saturday to Sunday. Upon meticulous review, the Court further refined the arrangement, mandating the child’s presence in the Family Court’s children’s facility on specific Saturdays and necessitating weekly telephonic communication with the father. This adjusted framework remains operative until the child reaches legal maturity.
