Keywords:Kerala Hc,Child custody,Pocso
A division bench of judges A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas passed this ruling in a case filed by a father (petitioner) seeking guardianship of his youthful child. The high court took the decision after noticing that with the parents fighting for the guardianship of the child, there was no bone
to cover the interests of the child.The court ruled this while hearing a case filed by the father (petitioner) seeking guardianship of his child.A family court has formerly granted guardianship of the elder two children to the father on the grounds that both of them were subordinated to botheration by their motherly forefather.The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there were medical records indicating that the youthful child was molested by the mama and that there was a case registered against her under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act( POCSO Act).The petitioner was a practicing counsel who had three children with his wife.The motherly forefather had molested the two children for which the guardianship was assigned to the father.The medical records furnished by the petitioner’s Counsel had shown that the youthful child was molested by the mama and a case was registered against her under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act( POCSO Act).The design fellow of the Victim Rights Centre, Advocate Parvathy Menon had mentioned in another case that appointment of independent Counsel would help cover the interest of the children.In the present case, the High Court had enforced this suggestion.
Written by: Shaikh Rizwa, Government Law College, Mumbai 2nd year intern under legal vidhiya.
