'A Parent May Be Morally Bad In Societal Sense But May Be Good For Child': P&H High Court Upholds Visitation Rights To Alleged Drug Addict Father

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the visitation rights granted to the father of a 10-year-old daughter who was allegedly dependent on substances, observing that "a man or a woman may be bad for someone in a contextual relationship; however, the same does not necessarily mean that the person is bad for his/her child."

While noting that the trial court had observed that the father is "dependent on chemicals" and as per records his treatment has not been completed yet, the Court said, "these observations so made ipso facto, do not make the father to be a bad man and no conclusive opinion can be made about his being dependent upon chemicals. A man or a woman may be bad for someone in a contextual relationship, the same does not necessarily mean that the person is bad for his/her child."

Justice Archana Puri said, "a mother or father, may be morally bad in the societal sense, but that parent may be good for the child. The so called morality is created by society, based on their own ethos and norms and should not necessarily reflect in a contextual relationship between the parent and child."

However, the Court decided to hand over the custody of the daughter to mother, considering the age "the girl child, at this stage, requires the assistance of her mother, more than that of a father."

The Court clarified that, "Not that, the father is not having any love and affection for the minor, but however, considering the age of the child, she is bound to have more attachment with the mother, more particularly, when she is already residing with the mother and therefore, no further change in the arrangement, already existing, shall be beneficial to the child."

The Court was seized of a revision petition filed by a father who was seeking custody of the minor daughter. The lower court had only granted visitation rights and refused to hand over the custody of the minor daughter to his father.

Facts In Brief

Marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in 2008 and the girl child was born from their wedlock in the year 2012. However, matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, as a result whereof, the petitioner and the respondent parted ways and the girl child continued to be in the custody of the mother. Amidst the matrimonial discord, the lower Court had handed over the custody right to the mother and granted visitation rights to the father. However the father had challenged the order before the High Court.

Considering the submissions, it observed that, "In a custody tussle, the matter is to be decided, not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties, but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would be best to serve the interest and welfare of the child."

The Court noted that in the impugned order, the lower Court had ordered the girl child to remain with the mother only, who is a qualified doctor.

"Even though, it has been alleged that father is dependent upon the chemicals and it was observed in the impugned order that rehabilitation as per the certificate, coming on record, for treatment, is incomplete and therefore, no ground is made for handing over the custody of the minor child to the father, but however, these observations so made ipso facto, do not make the father to be a bad man and no conclusive opinion can be made about his being dependent upon chemicals," observed the Court.

Considering the tender age of the daughter the Court said she is in need of care her mother, who can also sufficiently provide for the daughter.

In the light of the aforesaid observations, the custody of the girl child, as such, shall remain with the mother only, but however, the visitation rights are to be considered.

While allowing the visit for once in fortnight for two hours, the Court directed, "However, during the course of interaction for these two hours, the mother or maternal grand- parents of the child, though, shall remain at the place, where the child is having interaction, but shall remain away from the audible limits of interaction between the petitioner and the minor child.'

Case Titile: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 274 

Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

Click here to read/download the order