The Calcutta High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man and his mother, holding that allegations of cruelty cannot be sustained where the dispute is rooted in child custody and the welfare of the child assumes “paramount importance”.Emphasising that a child’s right to grow in a safe and “conducive environment” must take precedence, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray noted that the minor in the present case was unwilling to stay with his mother, making the matter fundamentally different from ordinary cruelty claims.“The welfare and well-being of the child is of paramount interest not only for his parents but also for the judicial institutions which are duty-bound to protect the interest and welfare of a child. Accordingly, I have found that there are certain reasonable basis for removing the child from the custody of the Opposite party no. 2 (wife) and as such, such action on the part of the petitioner no. 1 (husband) cannot be said to have inflicted actionable mental cruelty since, in my view, the interest of the child should be given much priority against the alleged claim of mental cruelty of the mother”, the order read. Justice Apurba Sinha Ray emphasised that the focus should be on seeing that the social fabric of families is not disturbed.The high court, on May 5, observed that children are “supremely important assets” of the country and have a universally recognised right to grow up in an environment free from harm and exploitation. The high court was hearing the criminal revision petition filed by the husband and his mother seeking the quashing of the FIR and chargesheet. Marriage, custody, litigationThe matter arose out of a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife married in 2005, with a son born in 2012. The wife alleged that after his birth, her husband and in-laws started different types of torture upon her, which was increasing day by day. It was claimed by the husband that since 2014, they started residing separately but in the same house. In November 2021, while the wife was away, the husband and his mother allegedly left their ancestral house along with the minor child. Story continues below this adHowever, the wife alleged that her husband had taken away their son without informing her, along with some cash and jewellery. Subsequently, she lodged a formal complaint in December 2021, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 498A IPC (dowry demands) and related provisions, alleging cruelty and harassment.Also Read | US-born child’s ‘deep roots’ in India outweigh American court orders, Delhi High Court rules in bitter custody battleFollowing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the husband and his mother. Subsequently, their application for discharge was rejected by the trial court in June 2023, prompting them to approach the high court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.During the course of disputes, the husband allegedly relied on a psychological assessment conducted by a private institution, claiming that it showed the child was under distress and subjected to ill-treatment by the mother. The wife, however, disputed this, arguing that the assessment was conducted without her knowledge and could not be relied upon.Around the same time, disputes regarding the custody of the child also arose. During these proceedings before the court, the child interacted with and expressed unwillingness to stay with the mother, even indicating fear of returning to her.Story continues below this ad‘No straitjacket formula’The high court clarified that even if weightage is not given to the report of the psychologist of the private medical institution, this case is singularly different from the other cases The court further pointed out that it cannot disregard this valuable right of the child. The high court mentioned that each case has to be judged on its own merits. It was added that no straight-jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with matrimonial litigation since these disputes between couples arise in various peculiar circumstances.The court pointed out that normal wear and tear in matrimonial disputes should not be given much weight.The court emphasised that the focus should be on seeing that the social fabric of families is not disturbed. However, despite such holistic suggestions, the matrimonial litigations are increasing by leaps and bounds. Trauma, agony to wifeAppearing for the wife, advocate Smarajit Basu, submitted that the psychological assessment report of the child cannot be relied upon. He added that the same was done without intimation to the wife, and further, the said assessment was done by a private institution. It was further submitted that the above chronology unmistakably establishes a continuous and deliberate course of conduct amounting to mental torture and cruelty inflicted upon the wife.Also Read | ‘Normal wear and tear in marriage not cruelty’: Jharkhand High Court refuses to grant divorce to manIt was emphasised that the husband’s acts have caused severe mental agony, trauma, and emotional devastation to the wife. Story continues below this adHe added that these acts included secretly subjecting the minor child to psychological assessment without the mother’s knowledge, forcibly removing the child from her custody, abandoning the wife without notice, denying her access to her own child despite subsisting judicial orders, and repeatedly misusing legal proceedings.Child tortured by motherOn the contrary, Senior Advocate Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, representing the husband, submitted that since 2014, the couple had started residing separately under the same roof. It was further contended that the petitioners never made any demand for dowry. It was added that a private psychologist had made a psychological assessment, which also showed how the child was tortured by his mother.