In the matter of Aditya Mahajan in year 2016, the bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Pratibha Rani said, bonding with parents in the interest of child. The bench also opined about the brainwashing and poisoning the mind of child by mother in dispute.
The women got the protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and she also got the custody of her minor son. The mother was in fear that interim custody of the child to the appellant, he may take away the child from Delhi.
The bench had view that, bonding with both parents in the interest of child and also that child and parents should not be deprived from the right to meet each other.
“It is trite that it is always in the interest of a child to bond with both parents notwithstanding the parents being estranged.”
The bench said that, the child will be in trauma, in so strained relationship, also when the mother has got protection order in her favour.
“the respondent having a protection order in her favour under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would obviously mean that the young child would always be in a trauma.”
The bench also said that, the mother can brainwash and poison the mind of child against his father.
“The possibility of the mother brainwashing the minor child and poisoning his mind against the father looms large in the realm of the horizon.”
Ld. Principal Judge Family Court granted visitation rights to the appellant father, further the Ld. Judge observed that the child was hesitant, during the interaction of father with the child.
The bench referring the observation of Ld. Principal Judge Family Court, the interaction of child with father was not enough and the Ld. Judge of Family court should not have taken casual.
“If a child is hesitant to be with a parent, it is duty of the Presiding Judge of the Family Court to have the child counselled with the help of the counsellors attached to the Court. Every effort has to be made to counsel both parents to spare the child the agony of their separation.”
The bench had opinion that, child must be kept out from the litigation and both spouses should be encouraged.
“The parents have to be counselled to keep the child out of the litigation. Both spouses should be encouraged to, in turn encourage the child to meet the other spouse.”
The bench said that, denial of accessing child, should not be the ground is a child is hesitant to meet any of the parent.
“if a Judge of a Family Court finds a child hesitant to meet either parent, it should not be the ground to deny proper access to the spouse in question.”
The appellant seeking interim custody for few hours every week as meeting with child an hour in a month is not sufficient. So the bench said, to monitor the situation for few months.
“In such a situation the application seeking interim custody for a few hours each week should be deferred and situation monitored for a period of few months. This period should be utilized for the counsellors to break the ice.”
The bench then directed the Ld. Principal Judge Family Court to refer the matter to counselling, ans look for the possibilities of compromise.
“The mandate of the counsellors would be to counsel both parents and try to reach a compromise whereunder either on a Saturday or on a Sunday the appellant can spend five to six hours with his son. He should be able to take the son for an outing. This will facilitate bonding.”
The bench also directed the Ld. Principal Judge Family Court:
“The application filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act is directed to be taken up afresh by the learned Principal Judge Family Court Karkardooma on September 09, 2016.”