Grandparents Can't Be Denied Visitation Rights To Meet Child, Affectionate Relationship With Them Beneficial For Grandkids: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that in custody and guardianship matters, the child's welfare had to be given paramount consideration. The court further noted that there was a need to safeguard the fast-eroding family system in the country and to ensure that the child's overall development is taken care of in the right environment. The court was thus of the opinion that the courts should not deny reasonable access/ visitation rights to the grandparents.

“In custody / guardianship matters, the courts have to consider the welfare of the minor child, which is a paramount consideration and to ensure and safeguard family system in the country, which is fast eroding and to ensure that there is overall development of the minor child and there is proper environment and upbringing of the child and therefore, the best interests of the child are taken care,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by a woman challenging the order of a single judge allowing visitation rights twice a month to her in-laws to meet their granddaughter. The daughter-in-law had informed the court that her husband had passed away when their daughter was one year old after which the respondent in-laws had treated her unfavourable, even blaming her for their son's death and terming her as inauspicious.

The daughter-in-law had further submitted that on the 7th-day ceremony of her husband's death, the in-laws had treated her with cruelty. Further, when her parents came to the in-laws' house to take her and the child, the in-laws refused the same and even locked themselves in a room with the child. She also submitted that she was forced to sign a mediation agreement in duress allowing visitation rights to the in-laws.

The appellant also alleged that the in-laws had neglected the child's health and even vandalized her parent's home. She also argued that the in-laws neither had any custody over the child nor any visitation rights.

On the other hand, the in-laws (grandparents of the minor child), submitted that while they were deeply affected by the demised of their only son, the actions of the daughter-in-law and her parents caused them further annoyance and distress. It was argued that the economic position of the appellant's parents was limited and they could not take proper care of the child and allowing the child to reside with them would be detrimental, lacking discipline, ethics, values, morals, and compassion. They thus argued that they were in a better financial position to look after the child.

The court opined that the truthfulness of the allegations raised by both parties would have to be looked into at the time of trial based on oral and documentary evidence and could not be gone into by the High Court in the present petition.

While the court held that the mother had custody over the child, the court also added that the grandparents could not be denied visitation rights which would only be beneficial for the overall growth of the child.

The court thus modified the order of the single judge and granted visitation rights once every month to the grandparents at the Child Care Centre attached to the Family Count in Chennai.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Shanker

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior Counsel For Mr.G.Anandaraj

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

Case Title: A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another

Case No: Original Side Appeal No.108 of 2023