A child should not be made a witness to prove a parent’s adultery in matrimonial proceedings.

In pending proceedings before the Family Court, Gandhinagar, the petitioner sought permission to examine his 16-year-old child as a witness to support his allegation that his wife had an illicit relationship with another man.

The child was living with the petitioner and studying in Standard IX.

The Family Court rejected the application at Exh. 24, considering the likely effect of the child’s testimony on the child’s personal and educational future.

The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

The petitioner also relied on an agreement executed in the presence of village members concerning the alleged relationship.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to permit the petitioner to examine his 16-year-old child as a witness in support of his adultery defence.

2. Whether the challenged order warranted interference by the High Court.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent. It applies the principle that a child’s interests should receive primary consideration in disputes between parents, and that a child should not be made a pawn in their litigation.

It also recognises that a party alleging adultery may seek to prove that allegation through evidence other than the child’s testimony, while the mother’s reputation and dignity should be protected.

The Court accepted that the child was alleged to be an eyewitness but considered the child’s age, schooling and position in the parental dispute.

It agreed with the Family Court that involving the child in the dispute could gravely affect the child’s mind and future.

Because the petitioner could seek to establish the adultery allegation through other evidence—and had placed an agreement executed before village members on record—the Court found no error warranting interference with the refusal to summon the child.

The petition was dismissed and the Rule discharged.