The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has emphasized the importance of a child’s right to maintain contact with both parents, even in cases of marital discord. The court granted visitation rights to a father who had been denied custody of his 7-year-old son.
The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay. The appellant was represented by Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, while the respondent was represented by Ayesha Azma S.
Case Background:
The case, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 453 of 2023, was filed by Shaik Aslam Latheef (the appellant/father) against Madanapalli Shafia Mariyam (the respondent/mother) concerning the custody and visitation rights of their minor son, Ayaan Latheef.
Initially, the father had filed a petition (G.W.O.P.No.03 of 2020) under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 to be declared the child’s guardian. However, this was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Ananthapuram, on September 15, 2023. The father then appealed this decision in the High Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. The father’s right to visitation and contact with the child
2. The welfare and best interests of the child in custody matters
3. The interpretation of previous agreements between the parents regarding custody
Court’s Decision:
The High Court granted visitation rights to the father, allowing him to meet the child once a week for two hours on Sundays. The court also permitted daily phone calls between the father and child for 10-15 minutes.
Key Observations:
Justice Tilhari, delivering the judgment, made several important observations:
1. On the child’s rights: “A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right.”
2. On parental conflicts: “Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents.”
3. On visitation rights: “Even if the custody is given to one parent, the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents.”
Also Read
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020), which emphasized the importance of maintaining contact between a child and both parents.
The judges also noted that the mother had remarried and was currently in Saudi Arabia, while the child was living with his maternal grandfather in India. They found no extreme circumstances that would justify denying the father visitation rights.
