Errant father loses visitation rights after woman appeals

CHENNAI: A family court here has suspended the visitation rights of a man who did not meet his child after he separated from his wife.
In an ex-parte order that cited an apex court observation in a similar case, the court directed that the custody rights in the case be altered to allow the man’s wife, Devika (name changed), to take the child abroad.Devika, an IT professional, went to court after she was offered a job in Canada but had her visa application turned down because of a court order granting her husband visitation rights was still in operation.
While permitting Devika to take the child with her, principal family court judge T C S Raja Chockalingam said she would have to submit an undertaking before the lower court that she would allow her former husband to visit his daughter whenever she returned to India.
“The judge noted that Devika is a single mother with the responsibility of bringing up her daughter,” Devika’s lawyer V Sathish said. The court ruled that Devika’s autonomy to take her daughter to Canada could not be hindered by the agreement in the court decree.
“Since her ex-husband had not visited their daughter since they separated, Devika approached the court, with a plea that the agreement infringed on her right to seek better employment,” the lawyer said. “The right of custody has now been modified to allow Devika to seek a better life for her family.”
In her application, Devika said she was married in May 2004 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After their daughter was born, the couple filed a petition for divorce citing incompatibility of temperament and irreconcilable differences. The order of divorce was passed in April 2008 and contained a clause that Devika was not opposed to her husband visiting their daughter on Christmas, New Year and Easter as well as one Sunday each month.
“Custody and visitation rights of children can be altered, keeping in view their needs. The petitioner’s endeavour to shift her residence and get a better job opportunity for herself and for the welfare of the child cannot be curtailed by the court,” the judge said.