SC Reserves Verdict in Custody case and says Granting child’s Custody solely on the Ground that Father is the Natural Guardian is ‘completely erroneous approach’
On August 28, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India reserved its judgment in an appeal by the maternal aunt against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting a 2.5-year-old child’s custody to her father on the ground that the father is the natural guardian. The SC bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih called Madhya Pradesh HC’s order a ‘completely erroneous approach’. Justice Oka remarked, “Our judicial conscience is shocked by the fact that the High Court treated the child as a transferable, movable property. That's the problem. High Court says there is a simple formula - the father is a natural guardian, child should go back to the father. By that logic, every custody petition, every habeas corpus petition dealing with minor children can be decided in one paragraph if we confirm this view taken by the High Court.” During the proceedings, the SC bench also reiterated that in custody cases, the child’s welfare is of paramount consideration rather than the legal rights of the parties seeking custody. It added, “A custody court can in a given case refuse to grant custody to the natural parents. It all depends on the welfare of the minor child. It is not axiomatic that the custody court will grant custody only on the basis of legal rights of the parties.”
In this case, the child has been living with her maternal aunt since her father’s arrest for the alleged dowry death of her mother. After being released, the child’s father and paternal grandparents filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madhya Pradesh HC seeking custody of the child. The HC in its judgment said that the child was in ‘illegal custody’ and should be returned to her biological father directing the maternal aunt to hand over the child’s custody to the father and paternal grandparents within 15 days as the father is the natural guardian. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court in the present appeal by the child’s maternal aunt. The SC remarked, “For two years the child is with the maternal aunt, we can't disturb custody like this. It will be unjust to the child.” Moreover, the top court suggested an interim arrangement where the father would be able to meet the child once every fortnight at the office of the Legal Services Authority (in the presence of the Secretary). Also, the court proposed that to help the child gradually become close with her father and paternal grandparents, a child psychologist should be involved.
Apart from this, the SC bench said that if the father subsequently files a custody petition then the family court could consider increasing his access to the child on the basis of her response to the meeting aforementioned. After this, the top court reserved the judgment.
