10-Yr-Old Not Concerned With Financial Security Provided By Father, Personality Build Up More Crucial: P&H HC Upholds Mother's Custody

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the mother's custody of a 10 years old girl child, rejecting the father's contention that he is the rightful guardian of the child as he is building a financial corpus for the child's future.

Single judge Justice Archana Puri remarked, "So far as, the financial security is concerned, it is good that father is doing so to secure the future of the child, but however, it is the fatherly duty. Now, at this age of the child, it is not going to have impact on the personality 'built-up' of the child. There are various other factors, which are more important for the age group of 9-10 years, which carry more weight, than the creating of financial security."

The Court further said creation of the financial funds may give some peace to secure the future of the child, "but however, a child, at this stage, has no concern with the financial corpus. The child is happily staying with the mother and the visitation rights (of father) are continued."

While doing so, the Court also took into consideration the emotional needs of the child qua both the parents and ordered the couple to consider planning a family outing once every four months, after giving due intimation to the Guardian Court.

The Court was hearing a revision plea filed by the father challenging the Guardian Court's order whereby he was granted only visitation rights. As per factual matrix of the case, the mother and the child were living separately from the husband since 2019.

At the outset, the Court observed that there cannot be any straight jacket formula to deal with the custody cases as each case has its own specific features.

"Thus, circumstantial flexibility ought to be there, while adjudicating on the question of final/interim custody of the child. The Courts, ought to remain cautious all the time, with the purpose to pass appropriate orders, as per the demand of the situation, while keeping in mind that the welfare and interest of the child, is the paramount consideration," it observed.

Coming to the facts of the case, the High Court found the Guardian Court overstepped in seeking Police intervention to enable visitation of father. It also disagreed with the observation that the husband-wife should not come in direct contact at the time of visitation, so as to avoid any tiff between them.

"(It) was too harsh an order, which would work counter to the interest of the child in question and thus, would frustrate the very purpose of the provisions of interim custody and visitation rights," Court said. Rather, it pointed to a report of the Social Paediatrics which suggested more "extensive parent time" so that the couple establishes and maintains a bonding.

Consequently, the Court continued the father's visitation right and directed the mother to keep the father in loop regarding the child's medical needs so that if need arises, the couple shall "together" address the situation.

Petitioner-in-person, along with Mr.S.S.Behl and Mr.Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocates.

Respondent-in-person, along with Mr.Rajesh Sethi and Mr.Anshuman Sethi, Advocates 

Title: XXX v. XXXX