Parents without custody should have sufficient visitation rights: Karnataka HC
After the child's mother had initiated proceedings for maintenance, a settlement was made in which the mother would have custody of the child, while the father would get visitation rights on the weekends and during vacations.
2 min read
The bench then ordered the respondent to hand over the child to his father on June 4 for the duration of his leave, while the respondent would be entitled to video call the child for an hour daily.
Directing the mother of a child to comply with a prior custody arrangements, the Karnataka High Court affirmed that a parent who does not hold the custody of the child would still be entitled to visitation rights. The order was passed on May 23 in response to a habeas corpus petition, by a bench consisting of Justices Alok Aradhe and Ramananth Hegde.
The son in question was born in 2011, but the parents have been estranged since 2014. After the child’s mother had initiated proceedings for maintenance, a settlement was made in which the mother would have custody of the child, while the father would get visitation rights on the weekends and during vacations.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that when he went to meet his son on one of the weekends of January this year, he was denied access, and his son was not handed over to him during the vacation in March. Further, there had been no response to e-mails that he had sent. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argued that the petitioner, a HAL employee, had not placed on record his leave certificate, and further would not be able to manage the boy alone, as the child was an epilepsy patient.
The bench noted that “The Court has to ensure that sufficient visitation rights to a parent who is not given child’s custody should be granted so that the child may not lose social, physical and psychological contact with the parent. The parent who is denied the custody of the child should have access to the child specially when both parents live in same city.” It was added that, ” In the instant case, parties have arrived at a settlement with regard to guardianship and custody of the son. We, therefore, see no reason as to why respondent..should be permitted to flout the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between the parties, that too without any justification.”
The bench then ordered the respondent to hand over the child to his father on June 4 for the duration of his leave, while the respondent would be entitled to video call the child for an hour daily.
You May Like
Photos
