The Punjab & Haryana High Court found last week that there are so many things a daughter cannot discuss with her father and, as such, mother is the best person to look after her daughter as she grows older.

Bank of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma and Justice Augustine George Masih also suggested that a daughter during her teenage years looks for a mother / female companion with whom she can comfortably share and discuss certain topics.

The matter before the Tribunal

The father / appellant of a 13-year-old daughter challenged the family court ruling. Gurugram allowed her wife to take custody of the minor girl from her father / appellant.

The civil reference arose from the applications of the applicant / father Rajat Agarwal for provisional custody of the girl before the court of the learned district judge, family court, Gurugram, which the family court ruled on April 5, 2018.

After hearing both parties, the family court granted the mother’s application for a judgment dated May 30, 2017 and transferred custody of the underage girl Dishita to her mother.

Therefore, the appellant’s father filed an immediate appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act 1984.

Arguments put before the Court of Justice

The complainant / father / husband is a practicing lawyer and alleged, among other things, that the complainant, as a father and natural guardian, had every right to claim custody of his daughter Dishita

He also alleged that the minor daughter’s welfare would be irreparably damaged if she were allowed to remain in the care of the interviewed mother.

On the other hand, the lawyer for the interviewed wife-mother argued that the well-being of the minor daughter requires that her custody remain with the interviewed mother, who is a well educated woman and is able to provide her daughter with quality education and create a better and safer home for them that is in the best interests and wellbeing of their daughter.

The question before the court

Should the father or the mother have custody of an almost 13-year-old female child?

Comments from the Court

At the outset, the Court found that the statutes made the father better placed to look after the well-being of the child (who is 5 years or older) who is normally the working member and head of the family.

However, the court said that in any event, the court must primarily look to the child’s well-being in order to determine the issue of his or her custody.

Referring to the testimony of the applicant, the father and the husband before the court, the court found that he is a very reserved and withdrawn guy who has withdrawn from social circles and friends.

The Court has also ruled

“The interviewed mother is an educated woman, and when the mother obtained custody of the daughter during the study period, her results were good, which means that the interviewed mother is able to provide her daughter with higher quality education than that Vocation father who is the primary ingredient for the minor girl’s welfare, improvement, and general development. ”

The Court also found that the mother’s role in the development of a child’s personality can never be questioned and that the mother shapes a child’s world from the cradle by rocking, caring for and teaching her child.

“A mother’s company, in particular, is more valuable to an adult female child, unless there are compelling and legitimate reasons that a child should not be deprived of its mother’s society,” the court ruled.

Significantly, the Tribunal observed:

“Mother is an invaluable gift, a true treasure and a serious power from the heart for a child, especially a growing girl at the age of 13. This is the crucial phase of her life as it is the most important change in biological thinking that makes her Facilitating understanding can be more effective with the help of their mother and in this crucial teenager, mother custody is necessary for their growth. ”

When the court finally concluded that the general welfare and development of Dishita lies with her mother, it found no illegality, inappropriateness, perversity or irrationality in the family court’s judgment under appeal.

However, the court granted the appellate father the right to visit to meet his daughter. The Court instructed that he should be free to visit the Child Dishita twice a month, preferably on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays at the place and time agreed between the parties.

Case title – Rajat Agarwal (father) versus Sonal Agarwal (mother)