B R Srinivas with his son
For the first time in Karnataka High Court's history, a division bench has divided the custody of a child between his estranged parents for six months each in a year.
On September 12, the division bench of Justice NK Patil and Justice B Manohar ordered that the custody of the 11-year-old boy would be with the father from January 1 to June 30 and with the mother from July 1 to December 31. The order also said that the child's education and other expenditure will be borne in equal proportion by both. Each parent will have visitation rights during weekends while the other parent has custody.
The minor child shall also be allowed to use the telephone and video conferencing to speak with either parent while in custody of the other, the order said.
BR Srinivas and Vinaya KM married in 1997. The husband filed a case for custody of the child in 2003 alleging that his wife had not returned from her parents' home after child birth. In 2004, the wife filed for divorce. After years of fighting it out in the family court, the case reached the HC in 2011. The divorce case is still being heard by a family court.
During several hearings in HC, the couple traded many charges against each other. Visitation rights were given to the father while the custody was with the mother. Srinivas, however, alleged that his wife was creating hurdles for him to meet his son. These hurdles included getting the child admitted in a school that was 20 kilometres from home, emotionally threatening the child and getting him into various courses so that he is not free on weekends to meet the father. The mother's side alleged that the father beat the child and exposed him to bad habits. The claims went to alarming heights. It was alleged that the mother was angry because the son had started liking the upma and kajoo burfee prepared by the father.
Advocate AK Mohan Krishna, who specialises in family matters, but is unconnected to this case, said, "There is no hard and fast rule as to which of the parents should get the custody of a minor child. But the Supreme Court has time and again stressed that the 'paramount interest of the child' has to be considered. But in majority of cases, the custody of a minor child is given to the woman and the man gets the visitation rights and pays for maintenance. When both parents are on equal footing, they fight tooth and nail to deny the other not just custody, but also visitation rights. Finally, it is on a case-to-case basis that things are decided. Though not unheard of, giving equal custody rights to both parents could be the way forward."
On September 12, the division bench of Justice NK Patil and Justice B Manohar ordered that the custody of the 11-year-old boy would be with the father from January 1 to June 30 and with the mother from July 1 to December 31. The order also said that the child's education and other expenditure will be borne in equal proportion by both. Each parent will have visitation rights during weekends while the other parent has custody.
The minor child shall also be allowed to use the telephone and video conferencing to speak with either parent while in custody of the other, the order said.
BR Srinivas and Vinaya KM married in 1997. The husband filed a case for custody of the child in 2003 alleging that his wife had not returned from her parents' home after child birth. In 2004, the wife filed for divorce. After years of fighting it out in the family court, the case reached the HC in 2011. The divorce case is still being heard by a family court.
During several hearings in HC, the couple traded many charges against each other. Visitation rights were given to the father while the custody was with the mother. Srinivas, however, alleged that his wife was creating hurdles for him to meet his son. These hurdles included getting the child admitted in a school that was 20 kilometres from home, emotionally threatening the child and getting him into various courses so that he is not free on weekends to meet the father. The mother's side alleged that the father beat the child and exposed him to bad habits. The claims went to alarming heights. It was alleged that the mother was angry because the son had started liking the upma and kajoo burfee prepared by the father.
Advocate AK Mohan Krishna, who specialises in family matters, but is unconnected to this case, said, "There is no hard and fast rule as to which of the parents should get the custody of a minor child. But the Supreme Court has time and again stressed that the 'paramount interest of the child' has to be considered. But in majority of cases, the custody of a minor child is given to the woman and the man gets the visitation rights and pays for maintenance. When both parents are on equal footing, they fight tooth and nail to deny the other not just custody, but also visitation rights. Finally, it is on a case-to-case basis that things are decided. Though not unheard of, giving equal custody rights to both parents could be the way forward."
No comments:
Post a Comment