'Welfare of child paramount in custody matters'

Tribune News Service

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, February 28

Observing that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters, a local court has denied the custody of two children to their mother.

The petitioner, a resident of a town in Pathankot district, had sought the custody of her two kids. In the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, she stated that she was married to the respondent, who lived in Chandigarh, on January 2, 2007. They were blessed with two children, who are presently in the custody of her husband. She alleged that she was subjected to torture, maltreatment and thrashing by the respondent and his family members over dowry.

The respondent and his family members forcibly kept the minors in their illegal custody, she alleged, adding that a divorce petition was filed by her husband on January 7, 2015, and it was pending in court.

The petitioner said the school-going children were forcibly separated from their mother. She claimed that she was well-educated and had now opened her own school. She said she was having sufficient income and means to keep the children and provide them better education.

Even otherwise, as per the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, the mother was the natural guardian of the minor children, she stated.

On the other hand, Thakur Kartar Singh, counsel for the husband, said the children were being looked after well by the respondent and his parents. Moreover, the kids’ father had proper financial sources and they were studying in a renowned school in Panchkula. On the other hand, their mother was residing in a town where there were no good schools or hospital.

After hearing the arguments, TPS Randhawa, Guardian Judge, Chandigarh, declined the petition. “There is no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner is having sufficient financial resources to maintain the children. Though the petitioner said she is running a school, but there no proof of income. It was admitted by the petitioner in her cross-examination that she had not taken permission from the authorities concerned for opening the school. She admitted that her brother, his wife and a cousin are teachers in the school and all of them have studied up to higher secondary only,” the court observed.

“On the other hand, the respondent examined two teachers of the school where the kids are studying and both of them produced the record, which showed that they are good in studies and studying in a good school. In custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Chandigarh is a far better place for minor children to live and study as compared to a place in Pathankot, which is a small town sans medical and educational facilities. So, the welfare of the minor children lies with the respondent. Moreover, this court has interacted with the minor children who have stated that they want to live with their father,” the court observed while declining the petition.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.