Mother Is The Best Person To Take Care Of Teenage Daughter: Punjab And Haryana High Court

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• This decision is in relation with Rajat Agarwal v Sonal Agarwal, where the appellant challenged the Family Court's decision regarding the mother's custody of her daughter.
• The Bench of Justices Ashok Kumar Verma and Augustine George Masih observed that during a girl's teen years, she looks up to her mother or a female companion for assistance and can share her issues comfortably with the mother.
• The Court stated that as a 13 year old girl, she will need her mother's help and support during the crucial phase of life, it being the biological  changes, therefore her custody with the mother is essential.
• Mothers role in a child's life is important, unless there are any justifiable reasons to not let the mother visit her child, she has all the rights to play an important part in the child's growth. 
• They mentioned that there are various things that a daughter can't possibly discuss with her father, and therefore the mother of the child is the best company, and best person to take care of her at her age. 

INTRODUCTION

In a recent ruling of a child custody case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a mother's company is valuable and essential for a girl in her teenage years, and unless there are compelling justifiable reasons, the child must not be deprived of her mother's care, company and comfort. The Bench observed that there are various things that a daughter can't possibly discuss with her father, and therefore the mother of the child is the best company, and best person to take care of her at her age. "At this crucial teen age, her custody with the mother is necessary for her growth. At this growing age, the daughter looks for a mother or a female companion with whom she can share and discuss certain issues comfortably. There would be so many things that a daughter could not discuss with her father and as such the mother shall be the best person to take care of her daughter at this growing age," the High Court stated. 

FURTHER DETAILS

The parties of the case, the couple married in Gurgaon in the year 2006. They had a daughter in the year 2008. After a period of time, the couple went through a rough patch. Through an order dated May 30, 2017 the Family Court granted the respondent/mother the custody of their daughter. The appellant/ Father who is also a practicing lawyer, filed an appeal under Section 19(1), Family Courts Act, 1984, in the High Court, challenging the judgement, stating that it would bring irreparable damage to the child's welfare, if she remained in the custody of her mother, and he claimed that as a lawyer and as the father of the child, he is the natural guardian with every right to claim custody of his daughter. The respondent's counsel argued that the mother is a well educated person, and can provide a quality education to her daughter, and she can also provide a safe home for her. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the Court observed that generally the status of the father as the working man, and head of the family does make him a naturally better guardian for the child(ren), the Court also opined the child's welfare is always taken into consideration before determining the custody of the child(ren). The Bench, after a thorough background check- observed that the appellant was a reclusive type of person, secluding himself from his social circle of acquaintances and friends, and the daughter also did not interact with her own grandparents, even though they all lived in the same building, and she stayed in the first floor. This meant that when he went out to work, she was most likely to stay alone on the first floor. On the other hand, when the Bench looked into the child's performance during her time with her mother, it was noted that she fared well in her studies and examinations, and therefore showing the Court that the mother/respondent is very capable of providing quality education to her daughter, as compared to the father/appellant, which the Court stated as "the most essential ingredient for the welfare, betterment and all-round developments of the minor girl."

WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's plea by stating in favour of the respondent- "she appears to be in a better position to look after the daughter and provide her quality education and also maintain her in a congenial manner." The Court granted the father visitation rights to meet the child two times a month, preferably the second and fourth Friday of every month, at the time and place agreed by the parties.

CONCLUSION

The Court, by stating that the welfare, betterments and all round developments of the child lies with her mother, concluded that it couldn't find any illegality, irrationality, impropriety or perversity in the judgement of the Family Court. The question asked in the Court was if a father could raise a 13 year old girl. If the father is educated about the issues that a girl child faces during their adolescence, it is possible for a father to raise a daughter, provided that he is a very present father in his daughters life. As a parent, the child depends on you to learn, and develop, and in turn it is the parents duty to be present in their child's life, supporting them, and teaching them everything they must learn at their age. A mother's company does soothe a teenage girl's mind as she is in a vulnerable state during her adolescence and biological changes of her body and mind, and a father's company teaches you various other aspects of life. The ruling of this case just opens your eyes to the significance of a mother's presence in a teenage girl's life, and also the importance of educating the world about teenage adolescence.