LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     04 November 2011

Woman ticks hc judge off for 'making' her nine-year-old son

Woman ticks HC Judge off for 'making' her nine-year-old son cry
Thursday, November 03, 2011 at 12:39:42 AM


The boy, whose parents are separated, started sobbing when the judge told the kid that he should spend time with his father. If he did not follow the order — or stop crying — “we will send you to the police station.” The sobbing continued for more than an hour outside the court


 

A mother took on a High Court judge on Wednesday for trying to scare her nine-year-old son into spending his weekends and holidays with his father and threatening him with jail if he didn’t.


Justice N K Patil and Justice C R Kumaraswamy were hearing a case between Raja Lakshmi and Subraya Manja over the custody of their son and were trying to convince the woman to send her son to meet his father on weekends and school holidays. The boy, however, started crying when he heard this.


“We are telling you to meet your father on the last Saturday and Sunday of the month and half of the vacation. If you don’t, we will send you to the police station. Your father has the same affection for you. Do not act like this. He is your father, he is also human. Your father is not your enemy. You can meet him once in a month,” Justice Patil told the boy.


On seeing the boy’s tears, he said, “We are not disturbing your stay with your mother. You can stay with her, but meet your father also. If not, we will send you permanently with your father.”


By this time, the boy was howling loudly, saying, “Please, please.”


But Justice Patil told the boy, “If you cry, we will send you to jail. Is it not your duty to tell your mother that you want to meet your father and discuss things with him?”


The judge then turned to the mother’s counsel: “It is your duty to tell your client that she should let the boy meet his father. Otherwise, you will kill the future of the child. If you people cannot arrive at a compromise, we will pass an order as per the facts of the case. We are tired of such things. Unless we pass the order, you won’t understand the trouble.


The couple had separated after a year of marriage and have been living apart for 10 years now. A lower court had ordered for the restitution of conjugal rights but Lakshmi had refused to go back to her husband.


During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Patil asked both the parties to talk to each other and arrive at a compromise. But their counsel said that the couple was not on talking terms and was incompatible.


The judge said, “It is a problem they have created. If they do not talk face to face, the matter won’t be decided. Neither he nor she will be happy. Let them live together for four months and see if they can lead a compatible life. The husband may now realise the importance of a wife. Many who have made mistakes have become model citizens and better human beings.  Unfortunately, our society has not developed family counsellors.” The judge then adjourned the case for some time and asked the parties to talk to each other.
 

Sympathy all around
During the adjournment, the boy continued to cry outside the court as his mother tried to console him. “Amma please, let us go home. I do not want to go inside again,” the boy kept repeating. Other clients, advocates and even the policeman on duty tried to console the boy but to no avail. When the court resumed at 4.30 pm, both mother and boy stayed outside.
 

Dad’s version
Manja, the boy’s father, told the court that he and his son would earlier play cricket and lagori, but his wife was not letting them meet. He told the court, “She did not even invite her father to our wedding. I earn Rs 40,000 per month and can take care of the child. I can take care of her like a queen. After marriage, the luck of her brother and sister turned for good and they kept me away. She left me nine years ago and did not come back.”


At this point, Lakshmi who was consoling her son outside the court hall, stormed in. “I was in hospital during childbirth but he did not once come to see me. He should have fed me when I was carrying. You will not understand how tough it is for a woman to become a second wife to a man. I will not go with him. I have brought up my son,” she told the court.


Justice Patil told her that her husband was repenting. She countered, “Repentance is different and leading a life is different. Even I will repent, but how will anyone understand how I agreed to become his second wife and how badly he treated me. He used me like a worker. For two years, he produced xerox copies in court, showing that he had sent me alimony. But he didn’t. He should have fed me when the child was born. Why else would the child fear going with him? After you scared him, he is still crying after one hour.”


After this outburst, the court sent both of them out of the court and read out the judgment. It ordered that since the child was of a tender age, he should not be deprived of the love and affection of both the parents. It ordered that the boy spend the last weekend of every month and half his vacations with the father. “Tell your client to motivate the child to meet the father, otherwise he will get full custody,” the judge told the mother’s advocate.


Source:

https://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=1&contentid=2011110320111103003955358442f5eaa&mid=51

 

Take:

1
. Good decision for child who is brain washed all these times.
2. Emotions and sentiments of abala nari does not work in a Court of Law.
 



Learning

 8 Replies


(Guest)

In the most notorious case ever in USA, Dymek Vs Nyquist Judge debarred the wife and her paramor from Visting the Child. The the judge even setenced the wife and her parmour and sent them to the jail for convincing the 5 year old child into thinking that his father was Insane. Courts don't take kindly to wives brainwashing the child against the father.


(Guest)

“I was in hospital during childbirth but he did not once come to see me. He should have fed me when I was carrying. You will not understand how tough it is for a woman to become a second wife to a man. I will not go with him. I have brought up my son,”

 

Wow! This allegation is an International one. Wives say this all over the world

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     05 November 2011

GOOD AND MATURE JUDGEMENT. DON'T THINK THAT I AM AN MCP.


(Guest)

south drama...

dad should not pay maintenance to mother but put the cash in the hands of child and tell him that he is paying for his food, home and other expenses and unless he gives she cannot provide you anything... it is always preferable to go along with his son to the bank open an account and let child deposit the fathers cheque so that he knows its father money and he is getting it... then he will realise the importance of father...

this is a great example of children favouring mother while ignoring father whereas the truth is that father earns and sends money to the family... one word that he did not take care has no meaning... this sort of grooming actually makes children curse father all their life and cannot realise unless themselves realise through paying maintenance to his own child...

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     06 November 2011

 

 

Originally posted by :Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]

"


GOOD AND MATURE JUDGEMENT. DON'T THINK THAT I AM AN MCP.

"

ha ha you have good sense of humor



NOPES ld. Ramani


How can I even dare to THINK when I am aware that world over FEMINISM is in its GEN X stage and MCP the term THEY gave then to men in some power was coined in the 60's when women's lib. post WW industrial revolution of west started getting forward momentum .......



ld. Ramani now we are living in 21st. Century in UNFIEM sponsored legal terrorism generation next age and thus their popular rhetorical now –a- days is French Kissed (i.e. referenced us as) 'male sluts' ha ha aha; hard to digest by many but then we should accept that we are now living in LGBTQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bis*xual, Transgender, Queer, Inters*x) AGE……… 

Jamai Of Law (propra)     07 November 2011

It is really shocking !!! This is India !!!

 

 

Now that husband would get a son who is a living dead , soulless, mentally crushed and traumatised  9 year old son ... Is that what he was trying to achieve.

 

 

Judges travelled beyond their powers, boundaries and jurisdiction here ... 

 

 

By brute force one can't made to reciprocate love ..... it is to be earned (same thing applies to repect, leadership etc etc )

 

 

Tomorrow judge would say that "You have to compulsarily love your father or else we would send you to jail/police!!!!!".

 

 

This is a sign/indicator of degradation/incompetance elements within judicial system.

 

 

It would be interesting as to  ........................ how would this verdict be executed/implemented!!!  which is impossible to implement ... this is a misuse of a writ! ............as fictitious scenario ....even If that boy even pretends .............. to fall sick on every such visiting date (kabhi fever or kabhi lose motion or any other ailment ... even a simple statement that he feels scared and intimidated by even the face or voice of his father ..... it would/should suffice him not to go to his father ... refuse his mother NOT to send the boy to the father!!!!. Nobody ... I repeat .... Nobody can compell this boy to go to his father unwillingly ..... one should not even try!!!)

 

I must say that judge have misread te whole thing and travelled beyond their jurisdictions ... "If you don’t, we will send you to the police station.!!!!!".

 

Remember , that boy is nine years old!!! .......... Can anybody compell anyone to meet anybody !!!

 

Hopeless ....  This is a demonstration of insensitivity, lack of understanding of human thinking ............... on the part of judicial officer!!!

 

 

I hereby criticise based on the judgment and the above narrations that .....................................

 

The above judges especially judge Justice N K Patil are gone too far

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     07 November 2011

Mr. Jamai of Law is too far-sighted.  It is not good for health.

If the mother was staging a drama in the court, Mr. Jamai is using rhetoric and creating dreadful scenery to prove his point. He should have been the lawyer of that woman. The judge would not have then dared, he would have got scared

There were two judges. At least the other judge should have thought like Mr. Jamai.

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate)     07 November 2011

I doubt about the authenticity of the things happened in the court as reported in the news report.  Assuming, but not admitting if such things happened, the judicial order upset the well settled principle laid down by SC in custody matters.  The sole criteria in granting custody is to see the welfare of the child.  If the child is not intellegible and cannot express his opinion, then only judicial authority can presume things taking into consideration of the totality of facts of the case and keeping the welfare of the child into utmost consideration may grant temporary/permanent custody or visitation rights to the deserving party.  The courts are not entitled to go to subjective presumptions that the child has been tutored by one parent against the other parent.  When the child is especially nine years old and is capable to anser the questions put forth by the judges, the proper course of action is that the judges should have taken the child into their chamber and elicited his responses.  Threatening him to send to police station and threatening the mother that the court would be going to give order against the interests of the mother, is beyond judicial power.  When juvenile justice Act is on the statute book and there is a prescribed procedure to deal with the juveniles by the investigative agencies and judicial authorities, if the juvenile is an accused, a child is terrorised by the justices is unwarranted. If that is the way to deal with the child even in criminal matters, the judges' approach towards the child in civil matter is undesirable. Any how, the DB, if it has acted in such manner (I doubt very much), there is a remedy to the child as well as mother to get the relief by taking appropriate judicial step.

N.B.:Even in mediation matters, some judicial personnel are acting unbecoming of them.  It is not just in matrimonial matters, even in Motor Accident Claims cases, the judges are forcing the claimants to accept the amount offered by Insurance companies and by that way showing favours to insurance companies.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register