The High Court dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the family court whereby it directed that interim custody of the 11 years old girl remained with the respondent-father for four days and with the appellant-mother for three days in a week.

The appellant appearing in person sought modification of the order on the ground that the respondent was a sexually abusive father and she sought to produce a video recording to that effect. Per contra, the respondent appearing in person denied the allegations and instead stated that the appellant was suffering from mental illness.

The High Court endorsed the view of the family court that both the parties had equal rights over the child. It was noted that the video recording did not prima facie support the allegations made by the appellant. It was also noted that the child was counselled by three independent counsellors and the reports stated that the child was happy and wished to live with her father. It was observed, “The Apex Court, as well as this court, has repeatedly held that where the parties are not able to resolve their differences and stay together, then shared parenting is the best formula to bring up a child.” Everything considered, the Court was of the opinion that there was no occasion to interfere with the impugned order of custodial arrangement.