Character certificate of few with ostrich mindset should not be used to decide character of woman: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently decided a custody dispute in favour of the wife after taking exception to arguments made by the husband casting aspersions on the wife's character [Deepa Nayak v. Pitamber Nai]..A Bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Sanjay S Agrawal said that if a wife does not squeeze into the mould as per the husband’s desire, it would not be a deciding factor for loss of the child’s custody.“It is important to set a red line when the attack is made to assassinate character of lady,” the Bench stressed..The Court took note that the husband's witness statements were largely influenced by the wife’s attire of jeans and t-shirts and the fact that she was moving around with men.“We are afraid that if such ill-conceived exercise is given a spotlight, then to protect the right & freedom of women would be a long arduous battle.”.The Bench further said that the character certificate by a few members of society who might have an "ostrich mindset” should not be allowed to decide the character of a woman for the purpose of deciding on custody."The character certificate by few of the society members, who might have ostrich mind set, should not be allowed to decide the character of a woman and to draw an inference while deciding the custody of the child that because of the behaviour of mother it would have an adverse impact on the mind of the child," the Court said..The character certificate by few of the society members, who might have ostrich mind set, should not be allowed to decide the character of a woman.Chhattisgarh High Court.The Court was hearing a case in which the wife and husband had parted ways in 2013. During the divorce proceedings, it was agreed that the child would be in the custody of the wife. However, after the child attained five years, the husband filed an application for custody of the child on the grounds that the mother was in company of different men, used to travel with other men and that her attire was not befitting, which reflected that she had "lost her chastity". In 2016, the family court had granted custody of the child to the husband..The appellant wife had moved an appeal against the order of the family court, claiming that there was nothing on record except bald statements assassinating her character.However, counsel for the husband said that the order was well-merited. The husband and witnesses on his behalf stated that the wife consumed liquor in the company of others, had Gutkha and even smoked cigarettes.It was further stated that she worked with one Vivek Sharma and used to travel with him for her job to different places. It was stated that she had lost her character and used to keep company of men, which was against morals. She was even described by them as a “female don”.This witness further stated that the day the child comes to know of the mother’s character, he would become demoralized and become a pervert.In response to this, the appellant and witnesses on her behalf submitted that since there were no female employees at her workplace, she had to travel to the field on the motorcycle or in the car with the contractor..The Court, on taking into account the conflicting statements, noted that the evidence on behalf of the husband appeared to be according to their own opinion and thought.“If the lady is required to do a job that too in the field for her livelihood, naturally she would be required to move from one place to other and only because of the fact that she is required to rub her shoulder with public at large or male i.e. to accompany them in the car, there cannot be an inference that she has lost her chastity.”.With this, the Court found that the custody of the child should go to the wife.“Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record we are of the view that the welfare of the child would hold the sway if the child is kept in the custody of the mother.”.However, before parting with the judgment, the Court laid down an arrangement for the respondent's visitation rights..Advocate Sunil Sahu appeared for the appellant wife and Advocate AK Prasad represented the respondent husband..[Read Judgment]