Delhi Court Grants Visitation Rights To Father Previously Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter

A Delhi Court on Monday granted visitation rights to a man whose wife had accused him of sexually assaulting their minor daughter, observing that the Delhi Police has not found any credible evidence to substantiate the allegations against him.

A closure report was filed by the Delhi Police after investigating the FIR, which was registered last year under section 10 of POCSO Act and section 354 of Indian Penal Code.

Family Court judge Harish Kumar of Patiala House Courts directed the mother to let the minor child to be with her father everyday for two hours from 5 to 7 PM in a park near their residence as both the parties reside within a distance of 100 meters.

“Since child is of very tender age therefore mother would be around but since she is likely to raise objection every now and then therefore though she would be around but must be fifty meters away from the child when it meets her father so that child has unhindered access to her father,” the court said.

It added: “Parties are advised not to make any complaint against each other if aforesaid visitation goes up and down by 10-15 minutes. The visitation shall start with effect from 01.08.2023.”

The order in question was challenged before the Delhi High Court for an urgent listing for today. However, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the matter to be listed tomorrow. 

The father had moved the family court seeking permanent custody of the minor child by way of a guardianship petition. He filed an urgent application seeking interim custody till the pendency of the case seeking an unsupervised access of the daughter for six hours everyday at his residence.

The couple was married in October 2019 and the child was born on January 23, 2021. It was the father’s case that the mother, by her “systematic manipulations”, and to deprive the minor from his love and care, registered the FIR against him last year.

He contended that the mother had “fabricated and concocted facts” to get the FIR registered which was evident from the fact that a closure report was filed after an investigation and that all the charges were dropped against him.

On the other hand, the mother told court that the father is a “man with perverted mind” who was seeking visitation rights of the minor on the pretext of his being a father. She alleged that the child was extremely unsafe with the father who had sexually assaulted her

While granting relief to the father, the court observed that the mother was “excessively over imagining” any act of the man towards his own daughter.

“Given that investigation agency have not found by any credible evidence to substantiate the allegation of the respondent rather their report suggest allegation to be motivated and this court also on independent assessment of the material placed on record by the respondent, has prima facie not found any truth in the allegation of the respondent and feels that fatherly act of love of the petitioner is being painted wrongly. It has to be kept ni mind that child's sexual abuse is very grave offense but it is equally graver to paint an innocuous act of father to be so, that too against his own child,” the judge said.

The court added that no parent has the right to deny the child of his or her right to get love, affection and care of the other parent because the father has some grievance against mother or vice versa or has some misunderstanding against each other.

“Respondent (mother) is better advised to send her maid to be around the child with clear instruction not to interfere in the meeting of the child with petitioner. Respondent is directed to co-operate so that this order of the court is complied with in letter and spirit,” the court ordered.

After going through the chargesheet filed by the Police, the court noted that the IO had analysed previous written communication of the mother with other persons such as her father in law and found that there was no whisper of child abuse by the father.

“It is true that mother can better understand the touch but mother is not infallible. Hence, not every thing what respondent says would be believed or acted upon. IO is a responsible officer of the Delhi Police and the charge-sheet has been forwarded to court after higher authorities ofthe IO and legal opinion approved of the view taken by the IO and therefore, charge-sheet cannot be brushed aside casually, though Ld. MM is not bound by the same,” the court said.

It added that as on day, the father stands on better footing qua his desire to meet the minor daughter because allegation against him has already been investigated and nothing direct or circumstantial evidence has been found to prosecute him except for the statement of the mother.

Appearance:

For Applicant: Advocates Harsh Gattani, Asmita Narula and Ramandeep Bawa

For Respondent: Advocate Tanmay Mehta