Delhi High Court says child needs best of both parents for growth, orders counselling in custody dispute

“A child requires the best of both parents for his/her nurturing to develop an overall personality,” the April 2 order read. 

The high court was concerned and analysing why the child, who otherwise has a bond with her father and enjoys his company, would not be willing to have a visitation in the absence of her mother’s presence in visible sight. 

Justice Amit Sharma noted that the couple has filed for divorce in the Saket Family Court, and the husband has also filed for the custody of the 5-year-old. (AI-enhanced image)

However, the high court failed to answer this and found that it would be in the best interest of the child that both parents should make joint efforts and make sure that the child is equally comfortable with the petitioner for the purposes of unsupervised visitations.

The court also noted that if the child was alienated towards the father on account of tutoring by her mother, then the same would have been with respect to the general meetings as well, which was not the case. 

‘Fights for spending time with child’

• The Delhi High Court noted that both parents are professionally well-qualified individuals with their own respective vocations, and the minor child has now turned 5 years old.
• The high court admitted that, being a father, the petitioner has all the rights for an effective visitation with his child as well as to participate in her social and educational progress.
• It was further noted that the girl child enjoys spending time with the petitioner, and there is no element of hostility towards the petitioner.
• It was further noted that the “limited access” for the petitioner is that he is not being given unsupervised visitation with the girl child.
• Concerning the request of the petitioner for education and welfare of his child, the high court noted that the estranged wife had provided access to the father on the parent-teacher association in the school of the minor child, and the e-portal of the school.
• The Delhi High Court noted that this reflects the status of the petitioner as the father of the child and has also been provided with a gate pass to the child’s school as well. 

Separation, divorce, child custody

The estranged couple started living separately around early 2023, and since then, the girl child has been in the exclusive custody of the mother.

Subsequently, the father filed a divorce petition in March 2024 before the family court and along with the divorce proceedings, he also moved an application seeking custody and visitation rights of the minor child.

In May 2024, the family court granted limited visitation rights, allowing the father to meet the child twice a month in the children’s room at the Saket Court Complex.

Aggrieved by the same with the limited access, the father approached the Delhi High Court, initially seeking expanded and unsupervised visitation rights.

The high court allowed him to file a fresh application before the family court, which was later decided in June 2024, continuing limited visitation with minor additions like school access.

Aggrieved again, the father filed the present petition challenging the family court’s refusal to grant broader and unsupervised visitation rights.

Bond with daughter

Appearing for the husband, advocate Arunav Patnaik argued that the petitioner has been deprived of playing a role in the education of his daughter. 

Patnaik also drew attention to the messages of the petitioner to the school coordinator to show that the petitioner has never misbehaved with the school staff and has always been cordial with them. 

The counsel also drew attention to various pictures captured by the petitioner with his daughter during a visitation in the children’s room in Saket and in their farm in Alwar before their separation to show that he has developed a bond with his daughter and has a cordial relationship with her, and is sharing a loving and affectionate relationship with her. 

It was further the case of the petitioner that he had a good relationship with their daughter, and alienation had happened due to the limited access and visitations granted to him with his daughter. 

No effort to succeed in coparenting

Representing the wife, advocate Malavika Rajkotia submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the family court order and that the court has merely passed an interim order solely to facilitate the meeting and provide visitation rights to the petitioner with his daughter.

It was also pointed out that the petitioner has, by his conduct and angry insistence, in fact, demonstrated unfitness to be with the child at this early age. 

“The mother has experienced that the petitioner has severe anger issues and, at times, displays hostility towards her in the presence of the child, even when she tries to make efforts for the smooth visitation between the petitioner and the child,” the counsel added. 

The counsel also insisted that the petitioner never allows efforts for coparenting to succeed, and it has been observed that, sometimes, the child has been questioned by the petitioner regarding the personal information and whereabouts of the estranged wife.