In a courtroom in Anantnag, law stepped aside and let love speak. A father, hoping to reclaim his son’s company through legal channels, was reminded by the district court that no order can override a child’s will—or mend what time and absence have torn.
The case revolved around a custody dispute rooted in a 2024 compromise agreement, which granted the father visitation rights and allowed him to request a change in the child’s school. But when the matter landed back in court, it was clear the heart of the child had not been consulted—and it had made its own decision.
Presiding over the case, Principal District Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina issued a stirring reminder: “Don’t try winning the child by litigation; win him by your patience and unconditional love.”
The 10-year-old boy, now in Class 3, was firm in his refusal to meet his father—both in private interaction and open court. The court noted that the boy’s aversion wasn’t superficial or rehearsed. It was deep-rooted, shaped by years of distance and absence, while being raised solely by his mother.
“This child is not a parcel to be passed between adults nursing wounds of broken marriage,” the judge noted. “He is an individual, with a voice, a will, and a world of emotions no court can command into obedience.”
Despite the father’s insistence, the court said it could not force a reunion. Doing so would mean emotionally tormenting the child, it noted, adding that even visitation rights hinge on the child’s willingness.
It wasn’t just a legal rebuke—it was a moral one. The father’s approach, the court observed, leaned heavily on confrontation rather than connection. “Where was this love before the lawsuits?” the judgment seemed to ask.
The mother, for her part, had challenged the original agreement, stating that the child’s consent had never been obtained. Interestingly, the court acknowledged her ongoing efforts to gently encourage her son to meet his father, even as the child refused to recognise him.
The judge urged the father to rethink his path—not through legal coercion, but through emotional honesty and enduring affection. “Let your child grow in the lap and love of the mother, with a sincere blend of unilateral, unconditional, un-annoying and un-disturbing love from you,” the court advised.
While the mother was commended for her willingness to help build a bridge, the judge urged her to match words with effort. Single parenting, the court acknowledged, is no easy road—but even a father estranged by time still has responsibilities that don’t vanish with separation.
Ultimately, the father’s petitions were dismissed. But the judgment didn’t end in bitterness. Instead, it closed with hope.
“Let this child, who dreams of becoming a Judge one day, bloom in love, not litigation. Let him one day help others mend what law alone cannot,” the court said. “And maybe, just maybe, his broken family finds its way back to wholeness.”
It was not just a legal verdict. It was a gentle verdict of the heart.
