Welfare of child

child's welfare has always been the court's concern...nothing new..

This path breaking citation is "NEW" in following sense for legal professionals usage in LCI forum in case non - legal members donot understand Point of Law before making a casual comment;

1. If recent (binding effect as per Art. 141 COI) is concerend then it was only during 2008 Hon'ble SC in I.S. Sirohi Vs. Commissioner of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 1361 of 2008 dated 27 – 08 - 2008 held:

"we are of the view that the children
should also not be alienated from the
company and affection of their father
or paternal grand-parents. In our view,
the children require the care, love and
affection, both of the father's side of
the family, as well as that of the mother,
and that none of them should be denied
access to the children.”

Which also infers that Hon'ble SC has opened up giving its directions for visitation of child to "grand-parents" after carefull thoughts and this 2010 title posts Authors reporting (hint) of binding direction from Apex Court shows that Hon'ble SC is also seeing practicaly the "welfare of the child" i.e. needs of a child for interaction with GRAND PARENTS also and before these "reportings" mostly natural guardians and or "custodial spouse" used to knock at the doors of Hon'ble Apex Court either for visitation or for custody Orders, hence the reporting of Author of this new guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in this respected legal LCI forum is very significant and important step foraward and can't be just commented by non - legal persons with 1 lines without application of legal mind on how it is going to bring in relief to large population of "grandparents" too who also have desire to see their grandchildren when "spouse" are contesting their respective cases.

In this the "welfare" of the child is also the involvement of custody of the child. When parents are not sensible enough to take proper care of the child, then the children will not grow up in a proper way. 

It seems Ms. Aishwarya is a non legal person interested in dumping her views on others irrespective of its value but on the other hand, if anyone opines with regard to legalities with proper citations and relevance, she feels frustrated and feels lost. She is not interested in going into the reality of the situation. So making casual remarks of landmark Judgements in this LCI which is for legal professionals will affect the forum itself in the long run. At least she can keep mum when she is not aware of the subject.

So many cases for the custody of child are filed by grandparents waiting for a favourable orders, since many parents do not bother to take care of the child due to their infights in the family such as dowry law, DV Act, illicit relationships etc., So how is it that when the situation is such, she is harping on the one hand about laws for controlling marriage expenses, whereas on the other hand is making casual remarks about the future generations which are to be protected in this society, by our society. It is our bounden duty to protect the child from the irresponsible parents and their way of life.

I think, sir, that your statement "this LCI which is for legal professionals" is somewhat inaccurate.

This forum is for the public and therefore will contain technical opinions as much as frustrated curses and irrelevant ramblings.

Coming back to the main issue, the Apex Court has very kindly acknowleged certain 'human rights' of the father's family but what does it actually mean in terms of 'timeshare arrangements' ?

Consider a father (and his parents), kindly permitted to meet the minor twice a month for 2 hours - a very typical visitation norm, certainly so at the interim stage (which is often much longer as the minor reaches 18 before most cases are finally disposed off).

No. of months in a year = 12

Therefore no. of visitations per annum = 2 x 12 = 24

Therefore no. of hours of visitation per annum = 24 x 2 = 48

So, the father's family gets TWO DAYS of the minor's company every year and that too under the watchful eyes of the mother / her family. For those weak in maths, the mother and her family, are left with 363 (or 364) uninterrupted days with the child.

As the months and years of hearings and adjournments and Court vacations roll by and grandparents pass away, the Indian legal system succeeds once again in delivering - not justice - but nails in the coffin of the minor's welfare and the dreams and aspirations of the father & his ilk.

FAMILY = Father And Mother I Love You

Will someone let him love both parents freely please ?

That is welfare of the child.