'Cruelty Of The Highest Order': Supreme Court Raps Husband For Depriving Wife Access To 6-Month Old Twins

In a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court today came down heavily on a man for depriving his wife access to their 6-month old twins and driving her out of the house.

"Cruelty of the highest order. Could the father take care of just born twins? She did not walk away - she was turned out of the house! The husband has acted extremely cruelly. Children aged 6 months deprived of the custody of the mother, sorry! Absolutely unacceptable. Big no. She has been turned out of the house. She is running here and there to get custody of her own children. That's the travesty" said Justice Sandeep Mehta.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter and called for the parties to appear in chamber on the next date, alongwith the children.

The respondent-wife was present alongwith her counsel. It was claimed that even though there were 2 cars present in the matrimonial house, the wife was not allowed to use them and had to walk to the hospital for 2 months for kangaroo care. The counsel also informed that the children were born after much efforts through IVF. She further alleged that the husband was an alcoholic with anger issues and beat the wife.

After hearing the submissions, Justice Nath posed to the senior counsel appearing for petitioner, "you will hand over the custody of the twin children or not?" In response, the senior counsel said that the husband has been taking care of the children till now and they cannot be taken out of the "status quo" they are used to. "That would be detrimental...", she averred.

Displeased, Justice Mehta retorted, "Totally depriving the mother of the custody of children aged 6 months! She immediately approached court, was not at all delayed".

The wife's counsel alleged that the husband approached the Supreme Court with the present transfer petition after the High Court gave a direction to the Family Court to decide the custody case in 2 months. She also asserted that the husband is threatening the wife and the children are being nurtured by a nanny.

"Depriving such small children of the love and affection of the mother is also very...not in the custody or lap of the mother, but in the lap of some other nanny or a third person...if you want this transfer petition to be entertained, you first hand over the custody of the children to the mother", Justice Nath told the senior counsel for petitioner.

When the bench enquired whether the husband, a businessman, was paying any maintenance to the wife, the wife's counsel answered in the negative. She informed that the wife is willing to withdraw all cases and does not want any maintenance - she just wants the children. The counsel further said that the wife has been beseeching the husband for a video call to see the children, but to no avail.

On this, the senior counsel for petitioner said, "[children are] not even 2 years old, what would they do in a video call?". In response, Justice Mehta retorted, "what will they do without a mother?"

With regard to the allegation that the wife walked out of the house on her own, Justice Nath remarked, "if she had walked out and had no love and affection for the children, she would not have been contesting all these cases".

Notably, at one point, the wife's counsel also took objection to a remark by the senior counsel for the husband that "having the children tossed" from one place to another is not the solution. The bench also deprecated the remark. "Unfortunate that this kind of language is being used", said Justice Mehta.

Subsequently, the senior counsel prayed for the case to be sent before a mediator, so the parties can sort out their issues. Ultimately, the matter was adjourned, giving time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder. Before parting, the bench also noted that the husband had lodged an FIR against the wife alleging theft.