HC: Marital discord shouldn’t deny child love of both parents
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai: Matrimonial disputes between couples should not deny their children the care and affection of both parents, the Madras high court has said, observing that any attempt to stop the child from meeting or spending time with the other parent would only make the child a ‘spoilt one’.
It then imposed ₹2,000 as cost on a woman who disobeyed a court order by not allowing her husband to spend time with their child.
The issue pertains to a contempt petition moved by a man seeking the court’s intervention to meet his child and to punish his wife for wilful disobedience of a court order.
Due to some misunderstandings his wife left her marital home on March 28, 2015 leaving their child there.
Later, she filed a case for custody of the child. Since a criminal complaint was registered against the petitioner, he moved the high court and obtained anticipatory bail on October 6, 2015 subject to the condition that he should hand over the child’s custody to his wife. The court also allowed him to meet the child.
But when the petitioner tried to meet his child, his wife allegedly did not allow him prompting him to approach the court.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai: Matrimonial disputes between couples should not deny their children the care and affection of both parents, the Madras high court has said, observing that any attempt to stop the child from meeting or spending time with the other parent would only make the child a ‘spoilt one’.
It then imposed ₹2,000 as cost on a woman who disobeyed a court order by not allowing her husband to spend time with their child.
The issue pertains to a contempt petition moved by a man seeking the court’s intervention to meet his child and to punish his wife for wilful disobedience of a court order.
Due to some misunderstandings his wife left her marital home on March 28, 2015 leaving their child there.
Later, she filed a case for custody of the child. Since a criminal complaint was registered against the petitioner, he moved the high court and obtained anticipatory bail on October 6, 2015 subject to the condition that he should hand over the child’s custody to his wife. The court also allowed him to meet the child.
But when the petitioner tried to meet his child, his wife allegedly did not allow him prompting him to approach the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment