The Madras High Court recently emphasized the imperative for courts to protect the diminishing family structure within the nation. This assertion came during a case regarding the allocation of visitation rights to the grandparents of a minor girl.

In custody or guardianship cases, the division bench of R Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq emphasized the paramount importance of prioritizing the welfare of the child.

"In custody or guardianship matters, the courts have to consider the welfare of the minor child, which is a paramount consideration and to ensure and safeguard family system in the country''

In the said matter, the bench observed that the minor girl was only 2.5 years old, thus indicating that the mother could rightfully claim custody of the child. However, the bench also stressed that denying the grandparents reasonable access or visitation rights would not be justifiable, as such interaction would contribute to the child's healthy development.

Nevertheless, the Court decided to reduce the frequency of visits from twice a month to once a month.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the mother of the minor child, who levied several accusations against her in-laws. She claimed that her in-laws unfairly blamed her for the illness and eventual demise of her husband. Additionally, she alleged that they circulated rumors branding her as "inauspicious."

She further alleged that her in-laws refused to surrender the child to her and forcibly removed the child from her care. When she requested the return of the child, they purportedly threatened to harm the child by threatening to throw them from the third floor of their residence.

Further, she alleged that the in-laws neglected the child's health leading to some infection. She also accused her in-laws of forcing her to sign a mediation agreement for their visitation rights and also that the in-laws brought in some 'rowdy' persons and vandalised her parents' house. 

On the contrary, the grandparents informed the Court that they were profoundly impacted by the loss of their son and were additionally troubled by the actions of their daughter-in-law, who removed the child from their care.

They argued that their daughter-in-law's parents had limited financial means, suggesting that allowing the child to reside with them would be detrimental as it might lack discipline, ethics, values, morals, and compassion. Additionally, the grandparents emphasized their own financial stability, citing ownership of more than two properties in and around Chennai, which they believed would enable them to better provide for all the needs of the child.

After hearing all the facts, the Court said it was inclined to modify the order of the Family Court granting visitation rights to the grandparents by restricting it to once a month (first Saturday) for four hours instead of twice a month (two hours each).

Senior Advocate Chitra Sampath, accompanied by advocate K Shanker, represented the mother in the proceedings. Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran, along with advocate G Anandaraj, appeared on behalf of the grandparents.