Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
Section 47—Grant of limited visitation rights to father—Appeal—Main ground which has been agitated by the appellant is that the parties are living in close vicinity and visitation rights granted to appellant are too infrequent and that he may be granted enhanced visitation rights—Appellant has claimed the custody of the son on the ground that mother does not have sufficient financial capacity to look after the needs of child—Financial status of either party is not the sole determining factor when considering the issue of custody though it may be relevant—Mother is not only more qualified, but is also having a better financial capacity to take care of minor son, which she has been doing since the infancy of child—Child, since the age of two years, has been in the exclusive custody of mother and has had minimal interaction with father—Son is now 16 years of age and has expressed his independent preference of continuing in the custody of the mother—Family Court has rightly denied the custody to the father—Admittedly, the parties are residing in close vicinity to each other, however, it cannot be ignored that child, who is more than 16 years of age, has had minimalistic contact with his father since infancy and has no inclination to meet his child—Balancing the rights of the child and his interest and welfare, the visitation rights as granted by the Family Judge vide impugned judgment does not call for any interference—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 22 to 33]