Daily Archives: June 9, 2017

Family court judge erred in child custody : appointed psychiatrist instead of child psychologist 😳😳😳 Bombay HC

Times of India


MUMBAI: The Bombay high court said a family court judge had erred in appointing a psychiatrist instead of a child psychologist to evaluate a child caught in a custody battle. Justice AM Badar stayed an order of six-day access to a mother of her six-year-old till her evaluation by a child psychologist. 
Justice Badar, presiding over a vacation bench, said, “Counselling child psychologists take a behavioural approach to emotional problems of children. Psychologists treat emotional and mental suffering in a patient with behavioural intervention. As against this, a psychiatrist is a trained medical doctor who takes care of medication management of a patient.” 
“In this case,” said the judge, “what is required is a report from a child psychologist on evaluating the behaviour of a child in her resistance to be with her mother. However, it appears that the family court inadvertently appointed a psychiatrist, said the HC, calling for suggestions of names of child psychologists from the mother, to nominate one. 
“Children facing several emotional problems, such as depression, anxiety and child abuse require necessary care and help from a child psychologist, who specializes in interpreting the thought process and actions of children to come up with appropriate mental health treatment,” said Justice Badar. 
But the father’s counsel, Veena Thadani, said the child, who since February is “traumatized and scared” to accompany her mother, needs to be evaluated by a child psychologist first. 
At the father’s request for evaluation, the family court in Bandra had in April appointed leading psychiatrist, Dr Harish Shetty, who has counselling experience of three decades, and one of his areas of expertise is listed as “behavioural problems in childhood”. But opposing the order in the HC, the father said Dr Shetty is a child psychiatrist and submitted a list of child psychologists instead, to evaluate the child. Thadani assured the court that he would give “compensatory access” to the mother, if nothing adverse is found in an evaluation by a child psychologist. 
The HC accepted that and said, “Welfare of a child is of paramount consideration.” A psychological evaluation will give a clue as to who hurt the child and the reason for her reluctance to join her mother, said the judge. 
The father submitted a list of child psychologists in the HC. Not agreeing with that list, the mother through her counsel, Vivek Pandey, offered to submit her own on May 30, but sought time on Tuesday. The court adjourned the matter to June 23. 
The father’s case was that the mother deserted them when the child was less than two years old, and pending a divorce petition filed by him, he had been giving her regular access of the child, who lives with him. He alleged that the mother had hurt her on one of the access dates by “pulling” at her while she clung to him in January, and ‘hurting’ her again in February. He produced medical certificates to show “wounds” on her little arms and back. The mother denied the allegations “made with an ulterior motive” and said the child was not in her custody on those days. She said so far she has been getting regular access, there was never any complaint of her ill-treating the child, and the summer vacation access cannot be denied to her. 
The HC said, “Minors cannot be treated as chattel for claiming custody. Powers to grant access, visitation right or custody of a minor are not to be exercised in the interest of parents, but in the interest and welfare of a minor child. While handing over custody of a minor child, the court is required to keep in mind that health, safety and overall welfare of the child will properly taken care of by the parent to whom the custody or access is being given.”
http://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/hc-family-court-judge-erred-in-child-custody-row/articleshow/58934470.cms

Man acquitted in dowry case 14 yrs after conviction

Man acquitted in dowry case 14 yrs after conviction – DNA INDIA 

Observing that “Merely because suicide was committed (by the wife) within seven years of marriage, the same would not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband”, the Bombay High Court recently acquitted a 38-year-old man convicted of charges of abetment and dowry harassment.
The acquittal came 14 years after Shesrao Dange was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The Nagpur bench of the high court observed “It cannot be concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of the trial court, therefore, cannot be sustained.”
As per the complaint lodged on April 9, 2002, by the father of the deceased Meena, it was alleged that the husband and his parents had ill-treated his daughter and demanded a dowry of Rs 5,000. Since he was unable to pay the same, they harassed Meena, who committed suicide.
The court, after going through the entire evidence, noted that “The complainant was informed about her daughter taking treatment two days prior to her death and he has lodged the complaint two days after her death, this delay is unexplained.”
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-man-acquitted-in-dowry-case-14-yrs-after-conviction-2460908

The great Indian Tarek per Tarek system !!

The great Indian Tarek per Tarek system : Most Indian matrimonial cases can be decided in a total of 10 or 15 dates… But they aren’t. There drag on for years. In many cases, Adjournment after adjournment ( Tarek or Tarek ) means that you’re forced to appear at the court just to be told that you will have to come back on another date… !! And there may be no significant improvement in your case for months on end… if not in person, in some cases you may be allowed to appear by counsel. Either way you will spend a lot of money. Either way there will be a lot of anxiety. That will be added uncertainties if you hire a councel if well known reasons 😳😳 If you choose not to appear due to frustration or otherwise, the case may be dismissed or decided against you. That means, “….adjourned if you appear and gone against u, if you don’t… “😪😪 If you try to request the judge for speedy justice that may be even taken as a personal affront and spoil your case. You will remain a mute spectator as your life passes by, and the woman is enjoying interim maintenance out of your hard earned money… While trains, cars, buses, Internet, banking transactions, a thousand other things have gotten faster in India, justice has become slower …. as a result, in many situations The middleman thrive, the hornist break down. Only the hard willed, patient and well oiled can survive the system. ….wither justice??