No Home-Cooked Food For 15 Days, Man Loses Custody Of 8-Year-Old Daughter
New Delhi:
A separated man lost custody of his eight-year-old daughter for not feeding her home-cooked food.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta spoke to the girl before they decided to return her to her mother.
The father, who is a busy professional, could not feed his daughter home-cooked food for even a single day in a whole fortnight, the Supreme Court was told.
Before the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Kerala High Court had allowed the father to see his daughter for 15 days every month.
The man works in Singapore. He rented a house in Thiruvananthapuram where he lived with his daughter for 15 days every month. He would fly down every two weeks from Singapore just to spend time with his daughter.
The Supreme Court said that while he is an affectionate father, the environment and circumstances of his house were not conducive for the girl child’s growth and well-being.
Continuous consumption of food bought from restaurants and hotels can pose a health hazard even to an adult person, let alone a little girl of eight years, Justice Mehta said.
The girl needs nutritious home-cooked food for her overall health, growth and development, and unfortunately, the father is not in a position to provide such nutrition to the girl, the Supreme Court said.
The bench said that it would have considered asking the father to provide home-cooked food, but the fact that the girl does not get the company of anyone other than the father during the interim custody period of 15 days is an additional factor which weighed heavily against his claim for the custody of the child at this stage.
Her mother is living with her parents and working from home. Taking note of this, the Supreme Court said the child would get a better company at her mother’s house, apart from her younger brother.
The Supreme Court also expressed disappointment over the Kerala High Court order giving the father the custody of his three-year-old son for 15 days every month. It called the order “grossly unfair” as it would have a serious adverse effect on the emotional and physical well-being of the son as he is being separated from his mother at a young age.
The bench said the emotional and moral support the child would be getting at his mother’s house is huge compared to the support being given by the father during the interim custody period.
The daughter staying with her father every 15 days also deprived her three-year-old brother of her company, the court said.
In the order, the Supreme Court allowed the father to take interim custody of his daughter on alternate weekends every month and to interact with her on video call for two days every week.
