New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court has ruled that a child of estranged parents could live with his mother in Singapore, while his father may visit him and the mother would be required to come to India to allow the child to visit his other parent. The custody of the child goes to the mother.
The court’s decision was on the grounds that the boy had expressed his desire to live with his mother.
The court had to decide over a question whether the child should be allowed to live with his father or stay with his mother in Singapore. The father had sought visiting rights and custody of the child. The wife had opposed this, stating that her husband was abusive and suffered from a psychiatric disorder.
The case was heard through video conferencing and the judgment was passed by a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The bench has, however, allowed the father to travel to Singapore to meet his child. The Court also directed the mother to bring the child to India twice a year and ensure the father has visitation rights.
The appellant and the respondent got married on February 4, 2009. Their child, Sattik, was born on May 9, 2013. There developed serious differences between the spouses and they have been living apart since 2016. The appellant submits that she has been compelled to leave due to domestic violence and abuse.
The appellant (mother of the child) is an employee of Nike Global Trading since 2011 and was posted in Singapore in September 2017.
The primary case before the Supreme Court was whether the child can be allowed to travel and stay with his mother permanently in Singapore or if the child should continue to live in Bengaluru with his maternal grandparents, as his father too hails from Bengaluru.
On March 1, 2018, the family court passed an order granting visitation rights to the respondent and directed the appellant or her parents (who had moved from Noida to Bengaluru to help the appellant with the child) to produce the child before the mediation centre on every third Saturday, at 11 am to allow for visitation by the respondent till 5 pm.
Read Also: ‘Two leaves’ symbol scam: Accused Covid positive, interim bail extended by Supreme Court
After the trial court dismissed her application to take the child out of Bengaluru, the High Court in July 2019 upheld the trial court verdict. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has held that: “Allowing this case to be lost in a maze of technicalities involving a formal challenge to the order, will eventually lead to the child staying in Bengaluru with the maternal grandparents, while the mother is employed in Singapore. The child will lose a year of education in Singapore, which is an additional reason for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142.
“A balance has to be drawn so as to ensure that in a situation where the parents are in a conflict, the child has a sense of security. The interests of the child are best subserved by ensuring that both the parents have a presence in his upbringing,” said the court order.
Read the judgment here;
Mrs-Ritika-Sharan-V-Sujoy-Ghosh