Indian Court sets aside order for wife to serve estranged husband snacks during child visitation
The Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Paresh Upadyay and Honourable Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy thus noted in allowing the appeal that the father may explore the possibility of going to the wife’s new location, Gurugram to visit the daughter if he so wishes.
The Indian High Court of the State of Madras has set aside an earlier order by a single judge directed at a wife to serve her estranged husband snacks during his visitation of their daughter.
The Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Paresh Upadyay and Honourable Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy thus noted in allowing the appeal that the father may explore the possibility of going to the wife’s new location, Gurugram to visit the daughter if he so wishes.
This was an appeal filed by the wife challenging the July 13, 2022 order of the court which directed her to serve the husband snacks anytime he visited the daughter noting that the same was less deciding rights of the parties and dictating what the wife needs to do to her husband.
Counsel of the appellant further submitted that the wife has gotten employment at Gurugram/Delhi and thus needed to stay there and thus the admission of the daughter over there will be secured.
In making its final decision, the court made the following findings;
The marriage was solemnized in the year 2006
The daughter was born on 13.11.2010
Husband and wife are not staying together since the year 2017
The daughter has been with the mother throughout
Father has visited the daughter periodically, sometimes under the orders of the court, sometimes independent of that, as per social arrangement.
The litigation before the court has seen more than one order.
The learned single judge while attempting to facilitate visitation, was swayed away by what should be the conduct of the parties towards each other, including serving snacks/tea to the other side.
The Court thus found that prescribing the above stipulation and many of the observations are less relevant for deciding the parties' rights or addressing the parties' grievances which call for interference.
Following the above and more, the court thus quashed the said order and allowed the appeal.