LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rajdeep Sadashiv (Officer)     10 February 2013

Advice on child custody

1.  I've been married for about 9 years. I have a 6 year old son who i'm very attached to .

2. My wife recently found out that I was going around with someone else by hacking into my email. She left our home, and took my son along with her to her parents home. They complained to my employers about me and also went around with my emails to my relatives, in order to create problems for me.

3. She does not permit me to speak to my son on the phone more than once a week. She does not let me meet him either. Though I know its illegal, I'm not raising the issue so as to not complicate the issue further. 

4. She is totally controlled by her parents now. They do not allow her to speak to me or my parents. They do not speak to my parents either. BOth families are negotiating a mutual divorce through a relative.

5. My net income is Rs 1 Lakh a month. After paying taxes and loans, I'm left with about 60,000.00 per month. My inlaws are demanding that I pay Rs 1 Crore and undertake never to see my son if I want a Mutual Divorce. 

6. My problem is that I neither have that kind of money, nor will I ever give up my son. 

7. I have so far let my wife keep my son, but seeing as she and her parents are using the little boy as a weapon to harass me , I am wondering if I can go and take my son from their house and get him to mine(in another city). I have the capacity to look after him and bring him up well. My parents can help me too.

8. I want to know what are the legal implications of such an act? Can they go to the police and gain custody of the child again? I do not want to be seperated from my son. My fight is with my wife, whom I want to divorce but I want my son to always have a father.

9. Secondly, what kind of an alimony would I normally have to pay my wife, if the court knows that my wife is an MTech graduate and has the capacity to earn more than me.

10. Thirdly, what kind of legal action can I take to get my son from my in laws , as they are clearly using him as  a bargaining chip.

 



Learning

 3 Replies

Adv.R.P.Chugh (Advocate/Legal Consultant (rpchughadvocatesupremecourt@hotmail.com))     10 February 2013

Dear Querist, 

 

A Father's custody is not illegal normally, and a father can take the child with him, ther ehave been cases were kidnapping charges have been foisted on fathers for that, but there were easily overcame as father is the natural guardian of the child.  Fighting for custody in a court may go either way - the courts would always look for welfare of the child, as to who can fulfill child's mental/physical and emotional needs well. 

As regards Maintenance issue - Since your wife is extremely well qualified, that would greatly mitigate the amount if not altogether rule it out. These judgments should help you out :-

 

1. Madhya Pradesh High Court – Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 – Equivalent citations: 2000 (4) MPHT 457

“6. In view of this, the question arises as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente life alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M. Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, can not be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice-versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That can not he treated to he aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient efforts arc unable to support and maintain themselves and arc required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours”

 

2. ) Kumaresan Vs. Aswathi  reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 760

wherein it has been held as under :- “8…….A plain reading of the above provision would show that the only condition required for grant of maintenance pendente lite is the party should not have sufficient independent income for her/his support. If it is found that the applicant has sufficient income for his/her support, no amount can be allowed as maintenance pendente lite as per section 24 of the Act. But of course, if it is found that the applicant has no sufficient independent income for his/her support, such application can be considered and suitable maintenance amount can be awarded pendente lite.”

 

3. Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs. M. Devaki reported in AIR 2003 Mad 212, wherein it has been held as under :-

“5…..The above averment shows that the petitioner herein/husband is working in Senthil Auto Garage, Annai Sathya Nagar, Chennai-102 and drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- per month. Likewise, it is also seen that the respondent herein/wife is working in Raj T.V and drawing

a salary of Rs.4,500/-. Though the said aspect has not been substantiated, I have already referred to the admission of the respondent herein in her counter statement filed in the main O.P.1310/2000 wherein she admitted that she secured a private job and is getting salary and staying with her brother. On the other hand, it is established particularly from Ex. R-1, the petitioner herein is getting only Rs.70/- per day or Rs.2000/- per month by working in Senthil Auto Garage. I have already referred to the language used in Section 24 which makes it clear that for grant of maintenance pendente lite the party should not have sufficient independent income for her support. In the light of the materials available, particularly the admitted case of the respondent/wife, she is employed in a private Satelite T.V. and earning for her livelihood staying with her brother, it cannot be construed that she is not having sufficient independent income. The Family Court lost its sight to consider the above material aspect.”

 

Good Luck !

 

 

Bharat Chugh - Advocate Supreme Court of India

Blog : www.advocatebharatchugh.wordpress.com, www.bharatchugh.wordpress.com

Stay Connected on Facebook ! www.facebook.com/advocatebharatchughonthelawsofindia

sunaina (house wife)     10 February 2013

Good Morning MR. Chugh,

Please oblige and answer a question in main forum, with title...Dear Mr Bharat Chugh advocate, in Criminal section?

Thank You..

Sunaina

Joseph Wilfred (Voluntarily Retired from Indian Overseas Bank)     11 February 2013

I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT MY FRIEND HAD SUGGESTED TO TAKE CUSTODY OF HIS SON . ALL THOSE CASES REFERRED ARE MORE THAN 8 YEARS OLD CASES . THERE IS A 4 YEAR OLD CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WHICH ORDERED THAT THE BOY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO HIS MOTHER AND THAT TOO THE HUSBAND WAS LIVING IN A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY . THE HUSBAND HAD PRAYED THE COURT THAT THE BOY WAS LIVING HAPPILY IN  HIS HOUSE WHICH IS AN HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY AND THE WIFE COULD NOT AFFORD TO BRING UP THE BOY LIKE THAT IF THE BOY'S CUSTODY WAS GIVEN TO HIS MOTHER . THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DID NOT AGREE TO THIS ON THE FACT THAT THE BOY SHOULD GET THE MOTHER'S AFFECTION IN HIS CHILDHOOD AND THAT THE BOY MUST BE IN THE CUSTODY OF HIS MOTHER TILL THE AGE OF 12 . EVEN AFTER THAT THE DECISION TAKING IS LEFT TO THE BOY ONLY AND NOT TO THE FATHER OR THE MOTHER . FOR GIRL CHILD TILL THEY ATTAIN MAJORITY OR GET MARRIED WHICHEVER IS EARLIER . NOW A DAYS THE COURTS ARE TAKING DECISIONS ON FAMILY MATTERS NOT ONLY BASED ON LAW ALONE BUT ON A WIDER RANGE OF MATTERS WHICH AFFECTS THE FAMILY AND THE CHILD . BUT IN CRIMINAL CASES THE LOWER COURTS TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE EVIDENCE ALONE AND DOES NOT LOOK INTO IT WHETHER THEY ARE GENUINE OR NOT . EVEN IF THERE IS A JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME OF INDIA THAT SUCH CASES CAN BE TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURTS THEN IT IS BETTER TO TAKE UP THOSE CASE TO THE HIGH COURTS ONLY BECAUSE THERE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD NO SAY IN ANY MATTERS BUT ON LAW ALONE AND THE PIBLIC PROSECUTERS HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE POLICE STATIONS IN ANY DIRECT WAY .THEY DON'T NEED TO CONSULT THE POLICE STATIONS BUT ONLY ON THE CASES - JOSEPH WILFRED - 11/02/2013 AT 00.25 HRS.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register