A division bench of Kerala high court comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar recently observed that denying the child the opportunity to interact with one of the parents will almost certainly result in "snapping of the emotional and psychological bondage." Furthermore, the court reiterated the settled position that when considering custody issues, the court must pass orders ensuring that the child is not completely deprived of one of the parents' love, affection, and company.

"It is no doubt; the welfare of the child is of prime consideration. If the child is denied the opportunity to interact with the father, it certainly will cause snapping of the emotional and psychological bondage with the father and the child. While the child is allowed to be with the mother, there shall be an opportunity for the father to have frequent interaction with the child."

The bench also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court held "that law is well settled by a catena of judgments that, while deciding matters of custody of a child, primary and paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. If the welfare of the child so demands then technical objections cannot come in the way. However, while deciding the welfare of the child it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. The courts should decide the issue of custody only on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. The child is the victim in custody battles. In this fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and litigations between two spouses, more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain and he or she alone is entitled to custody of the child. The court must therefore be very wary of what is said by each of the spouses"

In the current case, the petitioner's mother sought custody of her daughter due to marital discord. While granting her application, the Family Court ordered her to give her father interim custody of the child from 10.30 a.m. on all second Saturdays until 4 p.m. on the following Sundays, at the Family Court in Ettumanoor. It was also ordered that interim custody be granted from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on all Sundays, except the second Sunday, at the Family Court in Ettumanoor, and that the father be allowed to interact with the minor child via video call between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. on all Wednesdays. In this light, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the inconvenience caused to the mother by travelling a short distance to the Family Court could not be a sufficient reason to deny the father the opportunity to interact with the child.

Case Title: Neena George v. Alwin K. Jacob & Ors.