The Bombay High Court has issued a stern reminder to estranged couples that parental conflict should never deprive a child of the love of both parents. In a recent ruling, the court expressed deep concern over a mother’s “possessiveness,” stating that denying a father access to his child can have long-lasting psychological repercussions.
The bench, comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing an application from a man seeking access to his eight-year-old son during the current summer vacation. The court subsequently ordered the mother to hand over custody of the child to the father for five days during the holiday period.
The legal intervention follows a history of broken agreements. According to the father’s plea, the woman had previously agreed before a family court to allow visitation during holidays and weekends. However, she later reneged on these terms, blocking the father from seeing his son.
The High Court noted that the child had recently been referred to a psychologist for counseling—a development the bench found “disturbing.” The justices suggested that the need for professional intervention might never have arisen if the child had been allowed to enjoy the company of both parents.
“We are of the view that the presence of both parents in the life of the child is of great significance, which assists the child in developing into a healthy individual,” the court observed.
The ruling highlighted the vulnerability of the child, who is currently eight years old. The court emphasized that these are “formative years,” and any attempt by a parent to instill fear or hostility toward the other could leave a permanent mark.
“If his mother imbibes into him that it is not healthy for him to be in his father’s company, then the child would carry that fear forever,” the bench warned.
The court was clear that while a marriage may end, the responsibilities of parenthood do not. The justices criticized the mother’s resistance to the visitation arrangement, noting that her defiance of her own legal undertaking was counterproductive to the child’s interests.
“Whatever may be the discord between the parents, in our view, a child must get the love of both, the father and mother,” the court remarked. “The more she (mother) resists this arrangement, the more the child will move away from the father, and this is precisely what we want to avoid.”
By mandating the five-day custody period, the court aims to restore a balance in the child’s life, prioritizing his emotional and psychological health over the ongoing disputes of his parents.
