On March 8, the Gujarat High Court directed a woman to arrange video calls between her son and his father, who lives in Australia, as the child had never seen his father. The court emphasized the need for the child to recognize his father, expressing concern that without communication, the child might mistake his father for a stranger.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar remarked, “Mark our words, if the child sees his father without prior contact, he might say ‘hello uncle’. This must be avoided.”
Unfortunately, the court’s concerns were realized just hours after the order. During a video call arranged in the presence of their lawyers, the child refused to speak to his father, declaring that his mother was his entire world, as she had fulfilled both parental roles.
The court had ordered the couple to continue these video calls for three consecutive days to help the father and son bond. However, the child rejected the interaction on the very first day.
The case background reveals that the couple was living in Australia when their relationship soured. In 2012, the woman returned to India with their 9-month-old son and sought judicial separation. The court ordered interim maintenance from the husband, and contempt proceedings related to this matter have been ongoing since 2015.
The woman later attempted to return to Australia with her son, but her husband denied them entry into the home. While lawyers attempted to mediate a settlement, the man eventually agreed to take his wife and son back. However, the wife insisted that her husband come to India to accompany them, while the husband sent three air tickets, asking her brother to bring them to Australia.
When the husband later filed a complaint that his wife was preventing him from seeing their child, the court ordered virtual meetings between the father and son. The bench, led by Chief Justice Aravind Kumar, urged the lawyers to ensure these calls happened, hoping the interaction would foster a family reunion, which would be in the best interest of the child.
In the meantime, the husband requested his wife’s medical records to arrange treatment for her, but she refused to share them. The court reminded the couple that “a husband and wife are one in law, and there should be no secrecy between them,” ordering the woman to provide the medical records to her husband.
The court scheduled the next hearing for March 16 and requested a report on the outcome of the video calls between the father and son.