The vacation court was hearing the mother’s challenge to the Oct 13 order of family court granting the child’s interim custody to his father from Oct 17 till Oct 23. Pending divorce proceedings, the estranged couple signed consent terms by which the father was given access for 2 hours every Saturday in the family court’s child complex. The wife’s advocate said there are some concerns this time, and therefore, she is not comfortable granting the father access to the child for such an extended period, especially overnight, adding that the condition that the mother-in-law should not be at home is reasonable and in the child’s interest. The child is not willing to be with the father, and family court did not consider the child’s wish, he added.The child’s father said the condition is most unreasonable, and he cannot keep his mother outside the house during the child’s stay with him. He said his wife knew this arrangement would never work, which is why she suggested such an unreasonable condition. He informed the court that he was not given access to the child and lost five days of access.Justice Jamsandekar noted that the family court, on the father’s application for access to his son, “considered all the facts and circumstances.” He said the record of the petition and family court order did not support the wife’s submissions. “I find no substance in any of the grounds of the petition and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner,” he concluded.
