In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court denied a man's interim custody of his eight-year-old daughter because he failed to provide home-cooked meals during their time together. The judgment was made considering the child's mental, emotional, and physical well-being.
The case was related to a Kerala High Court order that divided the child's custody equally between the parents for 15 days each month. However, the Supreme Court's three-judge bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, after conversing with the child, concluded that the environment provided by the father was unsuitable.
The Father Lived in Singapore
Despite the father's love for his daughter, the court noted that the living conditions were not conducive. Working in Singapore, he rented a place in Thiruvananthapuram to spend time with her each month.
According to The Times of India, Justice Mehta stated, "Consistently eating restaurant or hotel food can harm even an adult's health, let alone an eight-year-old child. For her overall well-being, growth, and development, nutritious home-cooked meals are essential, which the father unfortunately couldn't provide."
Important Observations by the Court
The Supreme Court mentioned that if the father could provide homemade meals, it might have been considered, but during the 15-day interim custody period, the child had no company other than her father. Being separated from her three-year-old brother could potentially impact her mental health.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court's order granting the father custody of his three-year-old son for 15 days a month, calling it "entirely inappropriate." Separation at such a young age from the mother could severely affect the child's emotional and physical well-being. It noted that the mother works from home, and her parents live with her, providing better emotional and family support for the child.
The Supreme Court authorized temporary custody to the father on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month and granted him permission to communicate with the children via video calls twice a week. The court stated, "On one of these days, the father can meet the child for four hours, given it does not inconvenience her and under a child counselor's supervision."
