Supreme Court says, “It depends on the welfare of the child, whether or not custody can be refused to the child’s natural parents.”
Last Updated on September 3, 2024 by Arti Kumari
On August 28, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to give the father custody of the girl, age 2.5, was rejected by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The court referred to this decision as a “completely erroneous approach” and said that the father is the child’s natural guardian.
“Our judicial conscience is shocked by the fact that High Court treated the child as a transferable, movable property. That’s the problem. High Court says there is simple formula – 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”, Justice Abhay Oka orally said.
Judges Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih’s bench reaffirmed that the child’s wellbeing is the most important factor in custody issues, not the parties’ legal rights.
“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”, Justice Oka emphasised .
These remarks were made by the Court while holding up its decision in an appeal filed by the kid’s maternal aunt against the HC order giving the father custody of the child.
Since the father’s detention for the mother’s claimed dowry death, the youngster has been living with the maternal aunt. After the child was released on bond, the father and paternal grandparents filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, requesting custody of the child.
The child should be restored to her biological father and paternal grandparents, according to the HC, who claimed that the girl was under the maternal aunt’s “illegal custody”. Since the father is the child’s natural guardian, the HC finally ordered the maternal aunt to give custody to him within 15 days. In the current appeal before the Supreme Court, the maternal aunt contested this order.
Justice Oka expressed his disagreement with the HC’s reasoning throughout the hearing, stating that the father should have custody since he is the child’s natural guardian. Given that the youngster has spent the last two years with her aunt, the bench questioned how the child’s custody with her aunt could be contested.
“We cannot disrupt custody in this way; the child has been with the maternal aunt for the past two years. That won’t be fair to the youngster,” the bench said.
Justice Oka emphasized once more how crucial it is to put the child’s welfare first in custody battles.
The bench recommended a temporary solution in which the father would be permitted to see his daughter once every two weeks in the Legal Services Authority’s office, with the Secretary present.
In order to assist the kid in progressively developing a close relationship with her father and paternal grandparents, the Court further suggested involving a child psychologist. The bench stated that the family court might take into account granting the father more visitation rights if he later filed a custody petition, depending on the mother’s reaction to these sessions.
The father’s attorney, however, objected to this as the father already has an order from the HC in his favor. The Supreme Court then postponed making a decision in the matter.
Case Title: SOMPRABHA RANA VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Crl.A. No. 3821/2023
