A parent cannot be a guest in the life of their child”: Telangana high court insists on granting overnight custody to each parent
22 dec 2020
A parent cannot be a guest in the life of their child. If visitation rights only are granted for limited hours, it may not be sufficient for the child to have comfortable time with the father or mother whoever may be the case, noted the Telangana high court.
The court further stated that overnight custody must be encouraged wherever possible. It observed,”mere meeting and spending time with the parent for hours in the court, theatre, mall, park etc, under the supervision of the other parent or the legal guardian will not merely serve the purpose of visitation as the child will be under a lot of psychological pressure and due to that, he will not be comfortable.
The observation was made by a bench of justice T. Amarnath Goud, in a contempt case, filed against violation of a custody order passed bht the family court.
In this case, the husband who was the petitioner and his respondent wife had a child named Agastya. The two were divorced and were contesting for the custody of their child. The court further stated: “custody of the child shall be with the father or mother as follows-“
i. Sunday evening onwards till Friday morning, the father will have the custody of the child.
ii. The mother will pick the child from the school on Friday and it will be her duty to hand over the custody of the child to the father after the lunch in Sunday at 4pm.
This arrangement shall be for first three weeks in every month and for the remaining weeks, father shall have the custody of the child in order to spend time with the child in the last week ends.
This arrangement was made till the summer break. The present petition was filed by the father, claiming that the respondent has violated the clause of the order. He also claimed that the respondent has been taking inappropriate photographs of the child by taking him to the hospital and getting the child’s private parts tested for COVID.
The court found the respondent guilty of contempt. But, the court took a lenient stand against her.