Latest news with #GuardiansandWardsAct
News18
7 days ago
- News18
‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother
The HC prioritised the best interests of the boy over Muslim personal law, granting custody to his mother and reinforcing a child-centric interpretation of guardianship statutes In a significant judgment on July 21, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child's welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the grounds that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child after the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child's emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances. Justice Shailesh P Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The court held that the father's legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years. A significant factor in the High Court's reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The court emphasised that the child's preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding. Further, the court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father's household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child's comfort and care. Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent. The court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child's needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother's custody. Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v Jiten Bhalla, the court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law but must take into account the child's mental, emotional, and developmental needs. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court's order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child's schooling, mental peace, or daily routine. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Bombay High Court child custody muslim personal law view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
26-05-2025
- Health
- News18
Mother Engaging Maid No Ground To Deny Child Custody, Says Bombay High Court
Last Updated: The court underscored that such arrangements are common in households with infants and do not, by themselves, suggest neglect or incapacity on the part of the mother. The Bombay High Court recently observed that the mere act of a mother engaging a maid to assist in caring for a young child cannot be used to deny her custody rights. Dismissing a father's objection in a child custody battle, the court underscored that such arrangements are common in households with infants and do not, by themselves, suggest neglect or incapacity on the part of the mother. The case stemmed from a dispute between a married couple over the custody of their infant son, born in June 2023. After leaving the matrimonial home, the mother filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act before the family court seeking permanent custody of the child. She also sought interim custody, which was granted on January 30, 2024. The father challenged this interim order before the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench, arguing that the mother was not personally attending to the child and had instead delegated care to a maid. He submitted that this, combined with her alleged postnatal mental health issues, warranted the reversal of the custody decision. However, the bench of Justice RM Joshi rejected the argument, noting that engaging domestic help is a normal and practical decision for many mothers managing infant care, especially in urban households. The court observed: 'Even if it is accepted that a maid servant is engaged by respondent, it is not uncommon for a maid servant to be engaged where there is small child in the house. In such circumstances, the said fact even if it is accepted to be true will not become a ground to cause interference in the impugned order." Furthermore, the bench emphasised that the father had failed to bring any substantive material to show that the child's custody with the mother was harmful or against the child's welfare. The bench observed that anxiety and depression after childbirth are not uncommon and do not by themselves prove the mother is incapable of nurturing her child. The court cited the family court's finding that the respondent appeared well-functioning, held a valid driving licence, moved around independently in Pune, and exhibited no signs of harmful behaviour. It noted that the medical certificate furnished by the respondent affirmed her ability to care for the baby. Strengthening the mother's case, the court noted that the child had been in her custody for around eight months, and no concerns about the child's health, safety, or development had been raised during that period. In fact, medical records indicated that the child was in normal physical and mental health. The father had also argued that the family court, by granting custody at the interim stage, had effectively given final relief. The high court, however, clarified that the custody order was provisional and made pending a final decision on the mother's primary petition for permanent custody. It found no procedural irregularity in the family court's approach. In conclusion, the high court found no merit in the father's plea and upheld the family court's order granting interim custody to the mother. First Published:
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Time of India
Court stays diksha of 12-year-old amid custody dispute
Surat: The family court here stayed the 'diksha' of a 12-year-old boy just a day before it was scheduled. The boy's father filed a case for his custody in the court and objected to the 'diksha', calling it a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights as a father. The applicant also argued that 12 years is not an age to make the decision to take 'diksha'. The court stayed the ceremony until the father's plea for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act is disposed of. According to details, the boy's father and mother married in 2008 in Vijapur town of Gujarat. After the marriage, they started living in Indore where the boy was born. Due to disputes, they parted ways and filed separate cases in courts over marital and other issues. The custody of the boy remained with the mother. In Nov 2023, the father filed a guardian plea in family court and later sought his interim custody in April 2025. However, while the case was pending in court, the father learned that his son would be given 'diksha' in a ceremony on May 21-22 in Surat's Pal area. The father moved the family court and objected to it. The father's advocate, Naresh Gohil, argued in court, "This diksha was planned to deprive the father of natural guardian's rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Thousands Are Saving Money Using This Wall Plug elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Click Here Undo At this age, the child needs to play and study in school. The boy is a minor, and the mother cannot make decisions for his future unilaterally. Diksha should be stopped in the interest of justice when the custody plea is pending before the court." On the other hand, the opposition's advocate argued, "In 2016, the applicant asked the mother and son to leave the Indore home. He never cared for his son. The applicant also did not pay regular maintenance as directed by the court. If he loved his son, he would file a guardian custody plea much before 2023. The boy decided to take diksha on his own, which is good. The Constitution gives the right to everyone to follow their religion. As per Jain religion, a person above eight years of age can take diksha. This plea is nothing but to harass the boy and his mother." After listening to both sides, the court observed, "If the boy takes diksha, there will be no meaning to the main custody plea of the parent under the Guardians and Wards Act. In this case, if diksha is taken, it is possible that the father may not get custody in the future if his plea is accepted. It will result in a big loss to the applicant. So, until the custody plea under the Guardians and Wards Act is disposed of, the mother should not give custody of the boy to anyone and not organise his diksha. "
India Today
02-05-2025
- India Today
Kerala man loses custody of children as top court flags lack of home-cooked meals
The Supreme Court on April 29 overturned a Kerala High Court order that had granted interim custody of two minor children to their father.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the father had not met essential responsibilities, including providing proper care and nutritious, home-cooked meals for the children. The bench emphasised that frequent consumption of restaurant food could be detrimental, especially for a young child. It noted that an eight-year-old requires balanced, home-prepared meals-something the father had failed to well-established that regular intake of food from restaurants or hotels can affect health, even in adults. The nutritional needs of a growing eight-year-old demand home-cooked food, which the father is currently unable to provide," the court court also flagged concerns about the father's limited availability, stating that his work commitments left him with insufficient time to engage fully with the children during the custody period."We could even have considered giving an opportunity to the respondent-father to make suitable arrangements for providing home-cooked food to the child, but the fact that the child gets no company whatsoever except for that of the father during the interim custody period of 15 days is an additional factor which weighs heavily against his claim for the child's custody at this stage," the bench couple, who married in 2014, separated in 2017 following marital issues. They have two children from the June 2024, the mother approached a family court in Thiruvananthapuram under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking permanent custody. The court granted her interim custody, allowing the father to meet the children only once a month and through weekly video calls. The main custody matter remains under with these limitations, the father appealed to the Kerala High Court. In December 2024, the High Court modified the arrangement, allowing the father 15 days of custody each month, subject to conditions such as renting a residence in Thiruvananthapuram, hiring a nanny, and creating a supportive mother contested this decision before the Supreme review, the top court found the father had not fulfilled key conditions set by the High Court-most notably, he neither hired a nanny nor ensured fresh, home-cooked food for the a private interaction with the eight-year-old daughter, the court observed she was bright and well-spoken. She expressed unease with the fortnightly custody change and said that during her stay with her father, all meals were ordered from outside. She also mentioned feeling isolated due to the lack of any companionship apart from her appeared disturbed by the constant shift between households under the 15-day custody cycle," the court court further voiced concern for the three-year-old son, who had barely lived with the father and could experience psychological distress if separated from his mother."The High Court's interim arrangement for the younger child lacks justification and is clearly unsupported by the record," it top court reiterated that child custody decisions must always prioritise the child's best interests and not hinge on the affection or emotional arguments presented by either parent."The love and sincerity shown by a parent cannot alone dictate custody outcomes," the bench that the High Court had not adequately considered the potential impact of frequent custody exchanges, the Court annulled its interim custody order."The High Court's decision to allow 15 days of custody each month was flawed. It failed to account for the mental, physical, and emotional toll such an arrangement might take on the children. Over time, this could cause lasting psychological harm," the court said, acknowledging the father's willingness to remain actively involved in his children's lives, the Supreme Court permitted limited father may now meet his daughter on alternate weekends. During these visits, he may also spend up to four hours with his son, provided the child is comfortable and a court-approved child counsellor supervises the bench also permitted video calls between the father and the children for 15 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday, at times convenient for both court further directed the family court to fast-track proceedings in the mother's custody Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan, with advocates Santosh Krishnan and Sonam Anand, appeared for the mother. Senior Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Advocate Aswathi MK represented the inputs for Bar and BenchTune InTrending Reel IN THIS STORY#Kerala#Supreme Court
The Print
29-04-2025
- General
- The Print
Welfare of children paramount in custody battles fought by parents: SC
The observations came in a judgement in which the top court set aside a Kerala High Court order of December 11, 2014. 'In cases of child custody, the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. The utmost sincerity, love and affection showered by either of the parents, by itself, cannot be a ground to decide the custody of a child,' said a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta. New Delhi, Apr 29 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the welfare of children was 'paramount' in the legal battles over their custody between estranged parents. The high court granted the interim custody of two minor children for 15 days every month to the father, but the apex court called arrangement 'unfeasible' and 'detrimental' to the children's well-being. The verdict came on an appeal by the mother, a software professional, who challenged the high court's interim custody order in favour of the estranged husband, a general manager at a construction company in Singapore. The couple married in 2014 and has two children — a daughter born in 2016 and a son born in 2022. They have been living separately since 2017 following marital discord though a brief reconciliation in 2021 led to the birth of their second child. The father approached a family court in Thiruvananthapuram in June 2024 seeking permanent custody of the children under the Guardians and Wards Act. The family court granted the father limited visitation rights — including monthly in-person visits and weekly video calls. The high court modified the custody arrangement, allowing the father 15 days of physical custody each month, provided he fulfilled certain conditions like renting a flat in Thiruvananthapuram, hiring a nanny, and arranging transportation for the children. The high court also granted video call access to the parents when the child was in the other's custody. Setting aside the order, Justice Mehta, writing the judgement for the bench, said, 'The interim arrangement is neither feasible nor conducive to the well-being, mental and physical, of the children.' The arrangement, the court said, failed to consider the developmental needs of the children, particularly the need for stability, nutrition, and emotional security. 'However, at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent is a doting father who has shown his keen desire to have an equal and effective parenting role in the upbringing of his children. Thus, depriving him of the custody of the children in entirety is neither acceptable nor justifiable and may destroy all chances of family bonding,' it said. The bench said the father will have custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month and on these days, he may also meet the son for up to four hours under supervision of a child counsellor. Permitted the father to make video calls to children on every Tuesday and Thursday for 15 minutes, the bench directed the family court to expedite the ongoing custody battle under the guardianship laws. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
