Allowing the father’s plea to access his son, even as the mother, too, opposed it, the magistrate said that from September they are to meet every first and third Sunday from 11 am to 3 pm. “No doubt master…. does not want to meet his father but the fact is that he was residing with him till 2021 and he has no allegation against the father. So, it might be due to anger because of litigation. Therefore, giving access for the short regular intervals will suffice the purpose and is in the welfare of the child,” metropolitan magistrate Nadeem S Patel said.
The magistrate also said that merely because the son doesn’t want to meet his father, access cannot be refused. “…there is no serious allegation against the father for causing any violation to the son. Till 2021 his son was residing with the respondent (mother). Therefore, when there is no allegation which will adversely affect the future of son against father, in my view there is no reason to refuse the access..,” the magistrate said.
The boy’s mother had filed a domestic violence complaint against his father in 2021. She accused the man of emotional and economical abuse, while he accused her of having an affair. The magistrate, however, found prima facie evidence of domestic violence against the man. It was also observed that only because the woman had purchased the property with the man, it did not mean that she was having an affair with him. “Making allegations on the character of the wife itself is emotional abuse, which is one of the types of domestic violence. The respondent (husband) has made serious allegations on the character of the applicant who is his wife,” the magistrate had said in the 2022 order. The woman also sought a monthly maintenance of Rs 2 lakh for her son and herself. However, pointing out that the woman was earning well as a school teacher and through private tutoring and was paying a monthly rent of Rs 45,000 for a flat, the magistrate held that she was not entitled to maintenance. The father was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 35,000 towards the child. Subsequently the man moved the court wanting to meet his son. The man said that after the woman left the house with their son in 2021, he had not met him.
