"Cruelty Of The Highest Order": Supreme Court Pulls Up Husband For Ousting Wife And Denying Her Access To Six-Month-Old Twins; Directs Parties To Appear With Children
Evan V
In a matrimonial dispute involving custody and access to six-month-old twins, the Supreme Court on Monday made strong oral observations against the husband for allegedly ousting the wife from the matrimonial home and denying her access to the infants.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Justices Sandeep Mehta and Justices N.V. Anjaria heard the matter and directed the parties to appear in chambers on the next date, along with the children, to facilitate an effective assessment of the custody and access arrangements.
During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta described the allegations as “Cruelty Of The Highest Order” and 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 respondent-wife was present in Court with her counsel. It was submitted that despite vehicles being available at the matrimonial home, she was allegedly not permitted to use them and had to walk to the hospital for “kangaroo care” for nearly two months. It was also stated that the children were born through IVF after prolonged efforts. The wife further alleged domestic violence and contended that the children were being primarily looked after by a nanny.
Justice Vikram Nath questioned counsel for the husband on whether custody of the children would be handed over to the mother. The husband’s senior counsel stated that the husband had been caring for the twins and argued that disturbing the “status quo” could be detrimental to the children.
The Bench, however, was not persuaded. Justice Mehta noted the immediacy with which the wife had approached the court system and questioned the propriety of completely excluding the mother from access to six-month-old infants.
Justice Nath also made an oral observation emphasising the centrality of maternal access at such an early stage and stated: "Depriving such small children of the love and affection of the mother is also very...not in the custody or lap of the mother, but in the lap of some other nanny or a third person...if you want this transfer petition to be entertained, you first hand over the custody of the children to the mother"
On the issue of maintenance, the Bench enquired whether the husband was providing any financial support to the wife. The wife’s counsel answered in the negative and submitted that the wife was willing to withdraw all pending cases and was not pressing for maintenance, but sought access and custody of the children. It was further alleged that even a video call request to see the children was not being facilitated.
When counsel for the husband remarked, "[children are] not even 2 years old, what would they do in a video call?", Justice Mehta responded, "what will they do without a mother?"
Justice Nath also observed that if the wife had voluntarily left the home without concern for the children, she would not be litigating to secure access and custody.
During the hearing, the Bench also disapproved a remark made on behalf of the husband regarding the children being “tossed” from one place to another, with Justice Mehta commenting: "Unfortunate that this kind of language is being used".
The husband’s counsel sought a referral to mediation to explore a settlement. The matter was adjourned, granting time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder. The Bench also noted that the husband had lodged an FIR against the wife, alleging theft.
