The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has underscored the significant value of preserving a child's relationships with both parents, particularly during early childhood. This principle holds true even in situations of parental separation, where custody is awarded solely to one parent.

Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Nyapathy Vijay emphasized that in custody disputes, even if custody is awarded to one parent, the other parent should be granted adequate visitation rights. This ensures the child maintains meaningful contact with both parents, reflecting the court's commitment to preserving familial relationships in such cases.

The judgment cites the Supreme Court's observations that highlight the essential needs of a child, especially in their tender years, for love, affection, company, and protection from both parents. In line with these principles, the court held:

“We are of the view that the minor child needs the love, affection, company and protection of both parents, which is his basic human right. Parental conflics should not deprive the child of care from either parent.”

The case stemmed from an appeal filed by Shaik Aslam Latheef, challenging a lower court's decision that dismissed his petition for guardianship and custody of his 7-year-old son, Ayaan Latheef. In the High Court, the father sought visitation rights and interim custody during school holidays. The mother, Madanapalli Shafia Mariyam, who had remarried and was residing abroad, opposed these requests through her legal representative.

The father's counsel argued that the mother's remarriage and relocation abroad, resulting in the child being cared for by his maternal grandfather, warranted granting custody or, at the very least, visitation rights to the father. They also referenced a prior agreement between the parties stipulating that custody of the child would be transferred to the father upon the mother's remarriage.

Conversely, the mother's counsel contended that the father's alleged extramarital affair and a previous criminal case filed against him (subsequently withdrawn) justified denying him visitation rights. They argued that since the separation in 2018, the father had not made efforts to reconcile with the family.

After careful consideration of both arguments, the court granted visitation rights to the father.

The order, stated: "We do not find any extreme circumstances to deny the visitation and contact rights to the petitioner-father with his minor son."

Thus, the appeal was allowed, granting the father permission to meet the child once a week for two hours and have daily phone conversations. This decision ensures that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Shaik Aslam Latheef vs. Madanapalli Shafia Mariyam

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 453/2023

Counsel for petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

Counsel for respondent: AYESHA AZMA S