Bombay high court denies man access to son after boy’s bag checked for recorder
A division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and Sarang Kotwal was hearing a plea filed by the teenager’s mother, seeking cancellation of the permit granted to her estranged husband to meet her son.
The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday temporarily denied a businessman the permission to meet his 16-year-old son till August 31 because the teenager felt hurt after his father checked his bag for any recording devices his estranged wife might have hid.
A division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and Sarang Kotwal was hearing a plea filed by the teenager’s mother, seeking cancellation of the permit granted to her estranged husband to meet her son.
Modifying a December 2018 order which allowed the man to meet his son on the first working Saturday of every month, the judges asked him to apply for another permit after August 31, to “let the tense situation dilute”.
“It is absolutely necessary that some time is allowed to pass as cooling-off period before the respondent [city resident] is allowed to meet the child…It would be detrimental to the child if he is forced to meet the respondent against his wish in immediate future,” they said.
In accordance with the December 2018 order, the man had met his son on January 1 and February 16 for two hours at the family court counselling centre. However, on March 2, his wife claimed that he made discouraging comments about their son’s academic progress and intelligence and had gotten his bag checked. She said their son was “deeply hurt” by his father’s behaviour and refused to meet him.
The man, however, claimed his son’s behaviour had suddenly changed and he had suspected his wife may have placed a device in his bag to record their conversation. This prompted him to get the teenager’s bag checked by an official of the counselling centre.
The judges decided to meet the boy separately and found him to be “quite intelligent and mature enough to understand the situation and form his own opinion”.
They said the boy clearly expressed his “strong displeasure about the events of March 2” and “repeatedly requested” that he is not forced to meet his father.