“Child will not be comfortable meeting his father”: mother
Aesha had informed the court of her “concerns” that the child would not feel comfortable meeting his father (Shikhar Dhawan). However, the family court objected that such reasons had not been mentioned in the child custody proceedings. It found that both parties blamed each other for the litigation. The court added:
The blame for pollution within the family must be borne by both. A dispute arises when one raises a concern and the other does not appreciate or pay attention to it.
Both parents have the right to the child
The court found that Dhawan was not fighting for permanent custody of the child, merely asking to have his son with him in India at his wife’s expense. The court said:
The mother alone has no right to the child. Then why refuses the applicant to meet his own child if he is not a bad father to the child?
Their objection about the cost may be valid and the resulting objection may be fine, but their dislike may not be justified. She has been unable to explain what she fears about the plaintiff as a child and why she has approached the court in Australia to put him on the watch list.
If the plaintiff had intended to take custody of the child, he would not have approached the court in India. As soon as her concern is not clear, her objection to allowing the petitioner to meet his child cannot be taken into account.
Setback for Mohammed Shami’s wife Hasin Jahan in child support case: Kolkata court orders 50,000 rupees instead of her demand of 10,000 rupees a month
Comments are closed.