The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised a husband in a matrimonial dispute for allegedly denying his wife access to their six-month-old twin children and forcing her out of the matrimonial home.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the matter. During the proceedings, Justice Mehta described the conduct as “cruelty of the highest order.”
Court’s Strong Observations
Justice Mehta remarked:
“Cruelty of the highest order. Could the father take care of just born twins? She did not walk away – she was turned out of the house! The husband has acted extremely cruelly. Children aged 6 months deprived of the custody of the mother, sorry! Absolutely unacceptable. Big no. She has been turned out of the house. She is running here and there to get custody of her own children. That’s the travesty.”
The Bench directed both parties to appear in chambers on the next date along with the children.
Wife’s Allegations
The respondent-wife appeared in Court with her counsel. Her counsel submitted that although two cars were available in the matrimonial home, she was not allowed to use them. For two months, she had to walk to the hospital for kangaroo care after the twins were born.
The children were born through IVF after considerable effort. The wife further alleged that the husband is an alcoholic, has anger issues and subjected her to physical assault.
Custody And Status Quo Argument
Justice Vikram Nath asked the senior counsel for the petitioner-husband whether he would hand over custody of the twins.
In response, senior counsel argued that the husband had been caring for the children and that disturbing the existing “status quo” would be detrimental to them.
Justice Mehta expressed strong disapproval. He noted that the mother had immediately approached the Court and had not delayed seeking custody. He remarked that completely depriving the mother of six-month-old children was unacceptable.
Allegations Regarding Transfer Petition
Counsel for the wife alleged that the husband approached the Supreme Court with the present transfer petition after the High Court directed the Family Court to decide the custody case within two months.
It was also submitted that the husband has been threatening the wife and that the children are currently being nurtured by a nanny.
Justice Nath observed that depriving such young children of their mother’s affection and placing them in the lap of a third person raises serious concerns. He told the petitioner’s counsel that if the transfer petition was to be entertained, custody should first be handed over to the mother.
Maintenance And Video Call Issue
The Bench asked whether the husband, a businessman, was paying maintenance to the wife. Her counsel answered in the negative.
The wife expressed willingness to withdraw all cases and stated that she does not seek maintenance. She only seeks custody of her children. Her counsel further informed the Court that she had repeatedly requested video calls to see the children, but those requests were denied.
When the petitioner’s senior counsel argued that the children were not even two years old and questioned the purpose of video calls, Justice Mehta responded:
“What will they do without a mother?”
Court’s Reaction To Defence
Addressing the claim that the wife had voluntarily left the house, Justice Nath remarked that if she had no love or affection for the children, she would not be contesting the proceedings.
At one stage, the wife’s counsel objected to the petitioner’s senior counsel describing the situation as “having the children tossed” from one place to another. The Bench deprecated this language. Justice Mehta termed it unfortunate.
Further Proceedings
The petitioner’s senior counsel later requested that the matter be referred to mediation so the parties could resolve their disputes.
The Bench adjourned the matter and granted time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder.
Before concluding the hearing, the Court also recorded that the husband had lodged an FIR against the wife alleging theft.
