By Admin 
Supreme Court on Child Custody: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that their welfare is “paramount” in the legal battle between the couple living separately over the custody of the children. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “In cases of children’s custody, the welfare of the child should be considered as paramount. The excessive honesty, love and affection shown by any one of the parents cannot be the basis for determining the protection of the child in itself. ”
The Supreme Court made this comment in the judgment in which the order of 11 December 2014 of the Kerala High Court has been rejected. The High Court had given the interim protection of two children to the father for 15 days every month, but the Supreme Court described this system as “unmatched” and “harmful” for the welfare of children.
Couple married in 2014
This decision came on the appeal of the mother of the children, who challenged the interim custody order of the High Court in favor of the separate husband. Children’s mother is a software engineer, while father is a general manager in a construction company in Singapore. The couple married in 2014 and have two children. His daughter was born in 2016, while the son was born in 2022.
The couple were living separately since 2017 after a rift among themselves, although their second child was born in 2021 after a brief reconciliation. The father of the children knocked on the door of a family court in Thiruvananthapuram in June 2024 and requested to provide permanent custody of the children under the Conservator and Advice Act. The family court gave the father a limited meeting rights, including monthly personal meeting and weekly video calls.
The High Court gave the father a 15 -day custody every month
The High Court amended the custody system and allowed the father to have a 15 -day custody every month, provided that he should keep a flat on rent in Thiruvananthapuram and make arrangements for transport for children.
The High Court also provided video call facility to parents, when the child will be in the protection of another. However, dismissing the order, Supreme Court Judge Justice Mehta wrote a verdict for the bench, saying, “The interim system is neither viable nor favorable for mental and physical welfare of children.”
The Supreme Court said a big thing
The Supreme Court said that this system failed to consider the need for children’s development requirements, especially nutrition and emotional security. The court said, “However, at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that the defendant is a affectionate father who has shown his deep desire to play the role of equally and guardian in the upbringing of his children.” In this way, it is neither acceptable nor justified to completely deprive him of the care of children and it can destroy all the possibilities of family engagement. ”
Also read-
Pahalgam Terror Attack: How did the terrorist attack take place in Pahalgam? Who got the call first, know everything