[Supreme Court news] | [Child Custody, Natural Guardian, Father]

Reading time: 09 minutes

Summary

SC directed the sisters-in-law to hand over the child to the appellant immediately, taking into account the principle of the primary welfare of the child.

The Supreme Court ruled on August 20, 2024 that a man, as natural guardian, cannot be denied custody of his minor child merely because he left the child with relatives for several years after birth due to the death of his wife.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan has allowed an appeal filed by Gautam Kumar Das against the Delhi High Court order rejecting his request to give custody of his minor daughter to his sisters-in-law, who were caring for the child, as his wife had died of Covid-19 infection within 10 days of the daughter's birth.

“In our opinion, the mere fact that the appellant was in unfortunate circumstances and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (wife's sisters) were granted interim custody of the minor child only because they had been taking care of her for some years cannot be a reason for denying custody of the minor child to the appellant who is her sole natural guardian,” the court said.

The court ordered the sisters-in-law to hand the child over to the applicant without delay, taking into account the principle of the child's primary welfare.

“We are of the view that the applicant is not only the natural guardian, but that in order to ensure the welfare of the minor child, she should live with her natural family. The minor child is still quite young and will adapt very well to her natural family within a short period of time,” the court stated.

The complainant married on 27 January 2012. The marriage produced two children – a male offspring on 11 September 2023 and a second child on 20 April 2021.

When his wife passed away on April 30, 2021, he gave custody of his son and daughter to his sister-in-law as a temporary solution as he was going through a difficult time with the loss of his wife and father.

After some time, he was given custody of his son. However, he was denied custody of his daughter because she was too young.

After that, the sister-in-law continued to refuse to give her custody of her daughter and took her to her parents' house in West Bengal.

The defendant has since remarried in order to provide his children with the care and attention of a woman. However, he was denied custody of his daughter, which forced him to file the complaint.

During the proceedings, the Court considered it appropriate to give the appellant sufficient opportunity to win the love and affection of his minor daughter and accordingly granted him, his second wife and his son visitation rights.

In his application, the applicant argued that, as a natural guardian, he could not be forced to run from pillar to post to obtain custody of his own child.

The Court found that the minor child had integrated well into the family due to the visitation rights granted by the Supreme Court and this Court and that the family of four appeared to be happy.

As regards the appellant's suitability, the Court found that he was well educated and was currently employed as a Deputy General Manager in a large company in Delhi.

The appellant's residence is also in Delhi, whereas respondent No. 6, to whom respondent No. 5 gave custody of the minor child, resides in a remote village in West Bengal, the Court observed.

“Apart from taking care of his children, the accused can also provide the best educational opportunities to his children. The child who lost his mother at a young age cannot be deprived of the company of his father and biological brother. At the time, the accused had no option but to turn to his late wife's sisters to educate his toddler,” the court said, granting the man's request.

In its judgment, the court reiterated that there is no hard and fast rule regarding the admissibility of habeas corpus petition in matters of custody of minor children. It was held that the question whether or not the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

The court set aside the Supreme Court order but allowed the sisters-in-law to meet the child for two hours every week.