Justices Alexander Thomas and Sophy Thomas made this observation while considering a habeas corpus plea moved by a man, who is based in Gujarat, for releasing his 4-year-old daughter, who he alleged was being illegally detained by his in-laws.
The court also took note of the fact that the petitioner resided in Gujarat and that there was no material placed before it to indicate that any female family member resided with him who may be capable of taking care of the child.
“Always there should be a woman at home. Either mother, sister-in-law, mother-in-law, grandmother, somebody should be at home to look after the children,” the bench opined.
The bench compared the importance placed on the role of women in child rearing in India as opposed to the more equal sharing of responsibilities that exists in other countries, including Scandinavian countries.
“We have not reached the level of Scandinavian countries where you have same-sex marriage and everybody is equipped to rear children. Men, women and everyone looks after children and they divide their time and energy for that. In Indian scenario, when the children are very young, the most important thing is that a woman is at home,” the bench orally remarked.
It went on to voice its concerns regarding the safety of the child.
“Irrespective of the gender of the child, it is very difficult for you to look after a child under the age of 10. You will be going to work and children can get exposed to so many dangerous things. Nowadays sexual violence is increasing even against young children, some children below the age of 2 years. It may not be a frequent occurrence but safety of the child is very importance. Especially if you are living in a faraway state in a remote town,” the bench said.
“Please don’t keep any hope, we can give you a judgment on merit. If you don’t agree with it, please challenge it. We do not know if the children will be proper and safe with you at this stage. You can come here from Gujarat and see your children and you can have weekly video calls with the child. Suppose you are using parents patriae jurisdiction, first and paramount is the welfare of the minor”, the Court said.
“Who will take care of the minor? You are a 38-year-old man living alone and you will take care of a four-year-old child and that too a girl child? No sensible court will allow that request,” the bench added.
The bench further said that it cannot find any gross illegality with the fact that the petitioner’s minor daughter is with her grandparents and suggested that he settle the matter of custody in a Family Court rather than attempt to convert a habeas corpus proceedings into a custody matter.
The court posted the case to be considered again next week when it will converse with the minor child and her grandparents on video call.
Disclaimer: This story is auto-aggregated by a computer program and has not been created or edited by FreshersLIVE.Publisher : IANS-Media