Pune family court asks woman to pay Rs5,000 fine each time father is denied access to child

The mother submitted in her reply that she was ready and willing to comply with the order of the court but the petitioner never intended to meet the child

A family court in Pune has directed a woman to allow the father to meet their 11-year-old son or pay a fine of ₹5,000 each time the man is denied access to their child.

The petition application was moved under the section of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 read with section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 with all other enabling provisions for the grant of physical custody of the minor son aged eleven years. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The court gave its decision following a petition filed by the man in 2020. He stated that he is the real father of the minor and despite being a caring and conscious father, he has never been allowed to meet his son or go on a vacation since the initiation of litigation in 2015.

Judge NR Naikwade in his order stated, “If the respondent does not allow him to take the access, she will be liable for a fine of ₹5,000 per missed access. If it is found that respondent denied the access and willfully violated the order of the court during six months next, the custody of the child will be handed over to the petitioner father .”

The petition stated that his wife was mentally ill as she was suffering from schizophrenia. The marriage took place on May 13, 2007, at Rasta peth. But both have been living separately since March 2008.

The petition stated that the woman was suffering from various medical ailments and thereby it became imminent to grant the custody of the minor child to the petitioner for his growth and overall personality development under the care of the father as much more important than the mother.

The mother submitted in her reply denying the contention of the petitioner. She alleged that the father has not paid a single penny for the education of the son nor maintenance. She was ready and willing to comply with the order of the court but the petitioner never intended to meet the child. She is not suffering from any ailments. She is looking after the growth and personality development of the child. The father had failed to discharge his preliminary duty as the father.