In the case of Ashu Dutt v. Aneesha Dutt, the Bombay High Court stated that a child’s healthy development requires not only the presence of their parents, but also their siblings. The Court observed that children in India are the unfortunate victims of acrimonious litigation in matrimonial disputes.
The division bench, comprising of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Gauri Godse, acknowledged that it was dealing with a distressing situation where a 15-year-old boy was reluctant to meet his father due to past experiences.
Nonetheless, the child expressed a desire to meet his older siblings, who had been residing with their father in the United States and are currently present in the country.
“Due to the bitterly fought litigation between the parents, the child was deprived of having the company of his father and elder siblings. For the healthy growth of a child, it is necessary that a child has the company of both his parents as well as his siblings,” the judgment stated.
“It is in his interest that he has the company of both his parents. It is also in his interest that the scars in his mind due to the unfortunate incidents in the past are washed out. Both parents, who are bitterly fighting the litigation and are trying to impose their respective rights and wishes on the child, are expected to give preference to the welfare of the child over their own rights,” the Court observed.
The Bombay High Court considered the long-standing dispute between the parents of the child in question, which had been the subject of intense litigation. Initially, the child refused to meet his father, but later attempted to connect with him via Zoom call.
The Court recognized that it was impossible for the parents to turn back time and provide the child with the happy, healthy, and complete family he deserved. Both parents should express remorse and take this opportunity to assist the child in healing his emotional wounds, the Court remarked.
The Bench also acknowledged that matrimonial disputes in India are vigorously litigated, and that children must bear the consequences of such acrimonious litigation.
“This is an unfortunate case where due to a bitterly fought matrimonial dispute between the parents, the children have suffered. In our country, matrimonial disputes constitute the most bitterly fought adversarial litigation. A stage comes when warring couples stop seeing reasons. The children are treated as chattel. It is important to note that children cannot be treated as chattel or property where the parents would have absolute rights over the destiny and life of their children. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and not the legal rights of the parents.”
The Bombay High Court ruled that in such cases, it is the Court’s responsibility to exercise its parent patriae jurisdiction and oblige the parties to act in the best interests of the child.
As a result, the Court ordered the State and Central agencies to ensure the safe entry and exit of the child and his mother, who will fly from Thailand to India. The Court also instructed the father to ensure the mother and child’s safe return to Thailand after meeting with the family.
