Jharkhand HC Refuses Child Visitation to Father in Violation of Mutual Divorce Terms
Case no: F.A. No. 189 of 2024
By Sandhya kaika
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a father seeking custody and visitation rights for his minor son, Master Aalap Chakraborty, citing that the request violated the specific terms of a prior mutual consent divorce decree. The appellant, Joydeep Chakraborty, a software engineer based in Bangalore, challenged a 2024 Family Court order that denied him access to his seven-year-old son. He argued that as the biological father and natural guardian, he possessed an inherent right to meet his child.
However, the respondent-mother, Payal Banerjee, contended that the marriage was dissolved in 2021 under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act based on mutual agreement. A key condition of that settlement was that the child would reside exclusively with the mother and that neither party would initiate further litigation against the other.
Court’s Observations
A division bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai emphasized that in matters of custody, the “welfare of the child” is the paramount consideration, overriding the individual legal rights of parents.
The Court highlighted several factors in its decision:
Breach of Agreement: The suit was filed in direct violation of the 2021 mutual consent decree where the father had relinquished visitation rights.
Welfare & Logistics: The father lives alone in Bangalore and works full-time, leaving no one to care for the child during the day.
Financial Stability: The mother is economically sound, working at Tata Elxsi, and capable of providing for the child’s education and necessities.
Lack of Support: The father admitted he was not providing any maintenance for the child’s upbringing or schooling.
The Verdict
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s decision was not “perverse” and required no interference. It ruled that since the parties had amicably resolved the custody issue during their divorce, the father could not unilaterally backtrack on those terms, especially when the child’s current environment was stable. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the mother’s sole custody.
