A division bench of Justices S Vaidyanathan and C Saravanan stated, “spouses who can’t put their differences and egos aside, would cause their kids severe mental suffering.”
According to the Court, “ego and love will not travel together.” Thus, as far as the current case is concerned, the parties should keep in mind that ego is simply a small three-letter word, which can demolish a big twelve-letter term called “relationship.”
The statements were made by the court as it dismissed a habeas corpus petition brought by a woman who claimed her ex-husband had abducted their four-year-old son.
The Madras High Court issued the following comment regarding arrogance in the instance of a divorce between a husband and wife and custody of a small child.
The petition’s author claimed that while still at odds with her husband, she had taken her first child and gone to her mother’s house to give birth to her second child.
The husband brought the young child along during this. However, the spouse claimed that she had abandoned the first kid with me on her own.
The husband said that since I had filed for custody, the court had already been notified to take custody of the child. The husband and wife’s divorce proceeding is still pending.
In the meantime, a dispute between the husband and wife regarding custody of the child has reached the court. After hearing the arguments from both parties, Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan of the Madras High Court made significant comments regarding ego and relationships.
The petitioner mother, however, had freely left the infant with his father before heading to her parents’ house for the delivery of her second child, the Court learned after reviewing the case files.
The youngster had been living with his father since the petitioner returned to her parents’ house in 2020, according to the court. So the son was not held against his will.
However, since the husband had started the divorce process, it gave her the freedom to contact the proper forum to request custody of her kid.
The court ordered, “Whatever the case, it should go without saying that this court cannot decide who gets to keep the child and that the petitioner, who is a mother, must find a solution before the proper court for child custody.
In the exercise of its jurisdiction, this Court can only determine whether the detainee is in the illegal custody of someone or not. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that the child is in the illegal custody of the third respondent in this case for the reasons previously mentioned.”
