Kerala High Court slams family court over repugnant remarks against mother in custody battle – The Leaflet

“A man or woman can be bad for someone in a contextual relationship, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that person is bad for their child. A mother can be morally bad in a social sense, but she can be good for the child in terms of the child’s welfare‘ a Kerala Supreme Court has ruled in a child custody issue.

—

Earlier This month the Kerala High Court slammed a family court judge for using “distasteful” language towards a woman, alleging that she was found in the company of another man and that she was having fun with that person. The family judge made these observations when he transferred custody of a minor child, a three-and-a-half-year-old boy, to his father.

The Chamber of the Superior Court, to which Judge A. belonged, clearly rejected the language of the family judge. Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas said that the The highly repugnant language portrays the mindset of a high-ranking county justice officer, adding that the mere fact of a woman being found with another person cannot lead to the assumption that she went to him for pleasure.

“The moral judgment expressed in such orders would defeat the purpose of the custody inquiry“,” said the bank.

The court ruled on an application filed by the mother challenging the family court’s decision that the father had custody of her child.

The verdict noted that the strained relationship apparently forced the mother to leave the marital home (according to her version).

The man’s version was that his wife eloped with someone else.

On the contrary, the wife claimed that she had been forced to leave the marital home due to domestic violence.

The family court relied on the mother’s First Information Report (FIR) and affidavit before the judge concluded that she had eloped with another person for pleasure and that the wayward life she had chosen would adversely affect the mother’s well-being the children.

The Supreme Court said it didn’t believe any of the stories presented to them, but what concerned them was the language used by the family judge.

The court said that in a matter involving custody of the child, the welfare aspect alone must be considered first.

“A man or woman can be bad for someone in a contextual relationship, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that person is bad for their child. A mother can be morally bad in a social sense, but she can be good for the child in terms of the child’s welfare“,” The bench opined and added that so-called morality is created by society based on its own ethos and norms and should not necessarily be reflected in a contextual relationship between parent and child.

Regarding the role of the mother, the Bank noted that the mother’s care of a child is revered in this country as she takes care of the child in her womb for nine months and knows the pain and suffering of child birth .

“The court will have to consider the extent to which the child is protected when custody is transferred to the mother or father. The mother can be bad for the father or vice versa, but the mother can be good for her child. These are all matters to be analyzed after evidence has been presented“,” said the bank.

Based on the facts, the court ruled that the cyclical transfer of custody to the parents would be in the best interests of both parties. It therefore ordered custody of the child to be transferred to the mother every other Friday, while the family court’s order was overturned.