Marriage is not merely for sexual pleasure, its main purpose is to progenate: Madras High Court

Latest News

The Madras High Court on Friday observed that couples who tie the marital knot, must remember that marriage is not merely for carnal pleasure but its main purpose is to procreate.

Single-judge Justice Krishnan Ramasamy said that estranged couples litigating over custody of their minor children should know that such disputes make the children, brought into “this vicious world through the act of two individuals for their pleasure,” suffer.

“This Court would like to stress and impress upon the persons, who have tied the marital knot that the concept of marriage is not for mere carnal pleasure, but it is mainly for the purpose of progenating (sic) , which leads to the extension of the familial chain. The child born out of the said wedlock is the connecting link between the two individuals, who have been united over a sacred oath, taken by both. Any act in contravention of the oath on the touchstone of law is nothing but an act with which the hands of the binder of the link is severed,” Court said.

The bench was hearing an application filed by a woman lawyer seeking the interim custody of her two sons aged nine and six.

As per the facts, the couple got married in 2009 but began living separately since April 2021. While the woman moved to another flat opposite to her matrimonial home, the estranged husband and their two sons stayed behind.

The woman’s parents too stayed in another flat in the same building as the estranged husband and look after the children when the husband was out at work.

However, while previously the High Court had granted visitation rights to the mother, it was brought to the court’s notice that the husband was not adhering to the order, and was also alienating the minds of the children by speaking ill about their mother.

Justice Ramasamy took exception to such conduct of the husband and said that the act of alienating a child from his or her parent amounted to cruelty and “child abuse.”

“To turn a child against a parent is to turn a child against himself. Parental alienation is inhuman and it is a menace for the child. In fact, hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child against his/her mother/father unless it is taught by the person whom the children believes,” the Court said.

It said that looking at the conduct of the estranged husband, the children could no longer be considered to be in safe custody.

The Court, therefore, directed that the interim custody of both children be handed over to their mother until the original petition was decided finally. It also directed the woman to ensure that the children continue to remain under the care of their maternal grandparents and continue their school and other routine to ensure they stay comfortable.

The Court went on to say that it was a thing to lament that while the law wished the best for children in custody disputes, it had no choice but to grant their custody only to one of the parents. It said that parents should, therefore, “not get too frustrated” over marital disputes and quibbles, and instead dedicate their lives to raising their children as responsible citizens.

“Law can satisfy the ego, but it can never the satisfy the requirements of the child, as the framers of the law were only conscious of the welfare of the child and not on the mental turmoil that would be faced by a child in such a calamitous situation,” Court said.

Source Link

Leave a Reply