Family courts dealing with custody cases have an advantage over higher courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found that civil or family courts dealing with custody cases have an advantage over higher courts.

The court quashed the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which “interfered” with the custody of a two-year-old minor child within the discretion of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court passed a writ of habeas corpus directing the mother's family (appellant) to hand over the custody of the child to the father and his family (respondents).

A bench of judges Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih observed: “A regular civil/family court dealing with custody cases is in an advantageous position. The court can interact with the child frequently. Virtually all family courts have a child centre/play area… If either party needs to be given access to the child, the civil or family court is in a better position to monitor it.”

The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta while AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan represented the respondents.

The child's mother unfortunately died an unnatural death, allegedly by hanging. After her death, the child's father and his parents applied for custody of the child, which the High Court granted on the grounds that the appellants had taken custody of the child illegally. The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had failed to consider the welfare of the minor child, who was only 11 months old at the time of the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court explained that even if a High Court finds in a habeas corpus petition that the custody of the child by the respondents was illegal, it can decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if it considers that interference with the custody would not be in the interest and welfare of the minor.

The Court held that courts dealing with the habeas corpus issue relating to the custody of a minor child cannot treat the child as chattel property and award custody without even considering the impact of the disorder on the child.

“In determining the custody of minor children, the best interests of the minor are the sole overriding consideration. The rights of the parties cannot override the best interests of the child. This principle also applies to a petition for habeas corpus with respect to minors,” the court stated.

The court found that the Supreme Court had not addressed or considered the question of the child's welfare. “The Supreme Court challenged the custody of the child only on the basis of the father's right as natural guardian,” the court said.

“The child has not seen the father and grandparents for over a year. If the custody of the child is immediately transferred to the father and grandparents at the tender age of two years and seven months, the child will be unhappy as he has not seen them for a considerably long period of time,” the court noted.

Consequently, the court directed the appellants to provide bi-weekly access to the child's father and paternal grandparents to enable them to meet the child, observing, “When the court deals with the issue of habeas corpus in respect of a minor, it cannot treat the child as a movable property and award custody without considering the impact of the custodial disturbance on the child. Such issues cannot be decided mechanically. The court must act on the basis of humanitarian considerations. Finally, the court cannot ignore the doctrine of parens patriae.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal.

Title of Case: Somprabha Rana & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 664)

Look:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta; AOR Nikhil Jain; Advocates Saurabh Singh and Divyansh Singh

Respondents: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan and Yadav Narender Singh; Advocates Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, Ruby, Santosh Kumar, Madhurendra Sharma, Rajiv R. Mishra and Suruchi Yadav

Click here to read/download the judgment