Mumbai

The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over what it described as a mother’s excessive possessiveness toward her child while denying visitation rights to her estranged husband, emphasising that a child’s emotional and psychological growth depends greatly on the presence and affection of both parents.

A division bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande made the observation in an order passed last week while hearing an application filed by a man seeking access to his minor son during the summer vacation.

The court directed the woman to hand over temporary custody of the child to the father for five days during the summer holidays.

According to the father’s plea, his estranged wife had earlier agreed before the family court to allow him visitation during school vacations. However, she allegedly later went back on the arrangement and also stopped him from meeting the child on weekends, despite an earlier mutual understanding.

During the hearing, the high court noted what it termed a sense of “possessiveness” on the part of the mother, who currently has custody of the child. The bench also took note of the fact that the eight-year-old boy had been referred to a psychologist for counselling.

Calling the situation troubling, the court observed that if the child had been allowed to spend meaningful time with both parents, such counselling may perhaps not have been necessary.

The bench underlined that the involvement of both parents plays a vital role in shaping a child into a balanced and emotionally healthy individual. It observed that the boy is at a crucial stage of development, and if he is made to believe that spending time with his father is harmful, such fears could remain with him permanently.

The court further remarked that irrespective of differences or disputes between parents, a child should never be deprived of the love, care, and companionship of either parent.

It also expressed concern over the mother’s failure to honour her undertaking before the family court, under which she had agreed to allow the father access to the child every weekend.

READ MORE: Syed Tanveer Nasrin: Ambassador of culture, women rights and harmony

The bench warned that continued resistance to such arrangements could gradually distance the child from his father—something the court said must be prevented in the best interests of the child.