An Anantnag court refused a father’s plea for custody after his 10-year-old son refused to meet him, urging the man to win his child’s heart with love instead of legal fights. The judge stressed that forcing a child to meet a parent against his will would harm the child’s welfare.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jammu and Kashmir: The Principal District Judge of Anantnag, Tahir Khurshid Raina, told a father to win his son’s affection through patience and unconditional love rather than court battles. The court dismissed the man’s plea for custody after the boy strongly refused to go with him.
The judge made it clear that a child is not a commodity that can be moved between estranged parents to satisfy their egos and that the court cannot force the child to live with or even meet his father.
The court said:
“Despite the glaring fact that the child/ward is in complete denial to meet his father, the father remains insistent … Can this court afford to go against the will of the ward? The answer is ‘big No’. Even the visitation rights of the father are subject to the will of the child … this court as a ‘parens patriae’ of the child has a message for the petitioner-father. Don’t try winning the child by litigation; win him by your patience and unconditional love for him. Give love a chance over litigation, is the brief but a perfect message for the petitioner.”
The case was about the father’s request to enforce a custody agreement dated October 29, 2024, which gave him visitation rights. He also wanted to change his son’s school. On the other hand, the mother sought to cancel this agreement, saying the child had never agreed to it.
During the hearings, the court spoke to the 10-year-old boy, both privately and in open court. The boy, who is in Class 3, firmly refused to meet his father.
The judge observed:
“Here, the child is quite mature who is very strongly expressing his own choice in the context of the custody/visitation rights of the father and change of his school etc. as desired and prayed by his father before this court.”
The court noted that the father had made little effort to build a bond with his son after separating from his wife. Over the years, the boy had grown up almost entirely in his mother’s care, with no meaningful connection to his father.
The judge remarked:
“During this period of separation and mistrust, the child has simply grown in the custody of the mother, with apparently no genuine efforts made by the father to bring him back in his company. Obviously, the child has grown with no idea about the father in his life, and the father is now belated attempting through the process of court, to bring him back into his custody and company.”
Rejecting the father’s request, the court said:
“Once the child has shown his complete refusal to meet his father, this court cannot afford to compel him for the same by passing a judicial order. Under such circumstances, compelling the child to meet the father would simply amount to torturing the child, which is clearly against the concept of the ‘welfare of the child’, and ex-facie militates against the very purpose of the (Guardian and Wards) Act.”
The court appreciated that the mother was still encouraging her son to meet his father, even though the boy refused to recognise him.
The judge gave emotional advice to the father:
“Let your child grow in the lap and love of the mother with a sincere blend of unilateral, unconditional, un-annoying and un-disturbing love and care from you as the father. Remember, ‘father is so much more than just a relation. It means sacrifices, tough decisions, trust and a lifetime of love given to his kids’.”
The court also encouraged the mother to ensure that her willingness to let the father meet the child was genuine:
“Her words must match with the action as is required in this very piquant situation. For her to sustain the challenge of single parenting will be a daunting task. Let the father also share his own responsibility and this may bring a sense of relief in her already turbulent life. Let you choose to be a bridge of love between the estranged father-child, rather than a wall of hatred.”
Dismissing the father’s petitions for custody and visitation enforcement, the court expressed a hope for family reunion:
“Last but not the least, this court wishes the broken family to unite soon, and the child to become a bridge between his divided parents to lead them finally to live a loving and blissful life together, and the family to have a happy life in a happy home. Let the child grow and bloom to his fullest, and finally, to achieve his aim—to be a Judge.”
- Advocate Shahi-dul-Aslam represented the father.
- Advocate Numan Jhangir appeared for the mother.
CASE TITLE:
XYZ vs ZYX (Child Custody)
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Custody
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
