New Delhi: In a deeply emotional and empathetic ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday denied a father's plea for 15-day interim custody of his eight-year-old daughter, stressing the importance of nutritious home-cooked meals, sibling bonding, and emotional support in the child’s upbringing.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta quashed Kerala High Court’s earlier order that allowed the girl to stay with her father for 15 days each month.
After personally interacting with the child, the top court found that while the father was undoubtedly affectionate, the environment he offered was not conducive to her emotional or physical well-being.
“The child requires nutritious home-cooked food for her overall well-being, growth and development. Unfortunately, the father is not in a position to provide such nutrition,” Justice Sandeep Mehta observed in the judgment.
The father, employed in Singapore, had rented an apartment in Thiruvananthapuram and flew down each month to spend time with his daughter.
However, the court noted that the girl was fed only restaurant food during her stay with him, had no company other than her father, and was kept apart from her three-year-old brother, all of which contributed to an unhealthy and isolating experience.
The bench remarked, “Continued consumption of food from restaurants would pose a health hazard, even for a grown adult let alone a tender child of eight.”
The Court also found the High Court’s decision to grant the man 15-day custody of his three-year-old son “grossly unjustified,” noting that separating such a young child from the mother could have serious adverse consequences.
“The emotional and moral support which the child gets at her mother’s home is manifold compared to what is being provided by the father during the interim custody period,” the bench stated.
The mother, who works from home and lives with her parents, was found to offer a far more supportive environment for the children, especially with the presence of the daughter’s younger sibling.
While denying extended custody, the Supreme Court allowed the father interim custody on alternate Saturdays and Sundays.
Additionally, he may interact with the children via video calls twice a week, and on one of those days, have in-person custody for four hours under the supervision of a child counsellor, provided the children are comfortable.
The Supreme Court said it has to take a child-centric approach in custody battles, where the best interests and holistic well-being of the child remain paramount, above parental rights or desires.
