Summary
The Supreme Court directed that custody of a minor girl be handed to her father, her sole natural guardian, by her late mother's sisters, who had cared for her after the mother died of Covid-19 days after the birth. The Court held that temporary custody given out of necessity could not defeat the father's claim, that his habeas corpus petition under Article 226 was tenable on these facts, and that the child's welfare lay with her natural family.
Issues
- Whether the father, as natural guardian, could seek custody of his minor daughter from her maternal aunts through a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 instead of being relegated to the family court.
- Whether the aunts' care of the child for some years, after the father handed her over temporarily, justified denying him custody.
- What the welfare of the child required on the facts.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Tejaswini Gaud and Nirmala, the Court held that there is no hard and fast rule on the maintainability of habeas corpus in child custody matters; whether the writ court should exercise jurisdiction depends on the facts, and here the father as natural guardian was entitled to seek custody from relatives who had no legal authority over the child. The High Court erred in relegating him to the family court. (¶¶ 9, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 6, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956Relied on through the passage quoted from Tejaswini Gaud, under which the father is the natural guardian of a minor with a legal right to claim custody, while the mother's siblings have no authority in law to keep the child; the Court treated the appellant as the child's only natural guardian. (¶¶ 9, 13, 16)
Held
- Applying Tejaswini Gaud, a father who is the natural guardian may invoke Article 226 to recover a young child from relatives who have no legal authority over her; maintainability of habeas corpus in custody matters depends on the facts of each case, with no hard and fast rule. (¶¶ 9, 10, 15)
- Where a father, struck by the deaths of his wife and father during the pandemic, handed his infant daughter temporarily to his deceased wife's sisters, the fact that they looked after her for a few years is no ground to deny custody to him as her only natural guardian. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- The father's fitness was established: he was well educated, held a senior post with a public corporation in Delhi, had remarried, could provide for the child's education, and the child had bonded with him, his wife and her brother during court-ordered visitation; she should not be deprived of her father's and brother's company. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The aunts' allegations against the father appeared to be an afterthought raised only after he asserted his claim, and the decisions they relied on did not help them because there is no straitjacket formula in custody matters. (¶ 14)
- The paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the child; here, besides the father being the natural guardian, the child's welfare required that she live with her natural family, to which a child of tender age would adapt quickly. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondents 5 and 6 directed to hand over custody of the child to the appellant forthwith, with liberty to meet her at the appellant's residence every Wednesday from 4 pm to 6 pm.