Mumbai: Bombay high court recently frowned at a woman for not abiding by her undertaking to give weekly access to her eight-year-old son’s father.“We find it to be very disturbing… At this stage, whatever may be the discord between his parents, in our view, the child must get the love of both the father and the mother,” said a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande on May 6.The father had filed an interim application in the mother’s pending appeal against a family court order granting the son’s custody to him. He sought access to his son during his summer vacations from May 1-31. Last year, he was granted access for 10 days. The judges noted that on May 7, 2025, the wife readily agreed to grant him access on Sundays between 10am and 7pm. HC had also desired a joint parenting plan to be implemented.The father’s advocates said the weekly arrangement is not strictly followed and he is being denied access. “What we have noted is the possessiveness of the mother, the custodial parent,” the judges said.The mother’s advocate informed the court that the child has been referred to a psychologist. “We really find this to be disturbing as had the child been permitted to enjoy the company of both his parents… there would be no need for the child to be referred to a psychologist,’’ the judges said. They were of the view “that the presence of both parents in the life of the child is of great significance, which will assist him in developing into a healthy individual”.The judges also said the child is in his “formative years of development and being 8 years old, [he] can be shaped as what the mother moulds him into”. “If the mother imbibes into him that it is not healthy for him to be in the company of the father, the child will carry this fear and will grow up with this feeling (sic),” they added.They noted that the child’s custody, in any case, is with the mother and the father has sought access for a limited period during his vacation. Referring to the mother’s May 7, 2025, undertaking, the judges said, “The more she resists this arrangement, we are sure that the child will move away from the father and this is precisely what we want to avoid.”They allowed the father overnight access from May 15-20 and from June 1-7. They directed that the son be permitted “to establish telephonic contact/video calling with the mother and he shall not be denied the opportunity to be in touch with her, though not physically”. They directed the mother to “ensure compliance of her undertaking” and allow the father access to the child “every Sunday”.
