Teenage Daughter Needs Mother To Share Issues Comfortably: Punjab And Haryana HC Upholds Daughter's Custody With Mother

The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma and Justice Augustine George Masih also opined that during her teen years, a daughter looks for mother/a female companion with whom she can share and discuss certain issues comfortably.

The matter before the Court

The Father/Appellant of a 13-year-old daughter challenged the Judgment passed by the Family Court, Gurugram allowing her wife to take over the custody of the minor girl from her Father/Appellant.

The Civil Reference arose out the applications filed by the appellant/father-Rajat Agarwal for interim custody of the girl child before the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, which were transferred to the High Court from the Family Court vide order dated 5^th April 2018.

The Family Court, after hearing both the parties, allowed the petition of the mother vide its judgment dated 30^th May 2017 and gave custody of the minor girl- Dishita to her mother.

Hence, the appellant father has filed the instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Arguments raised before the Court

The Appellant/Father/Husband is a practicing lawyer and, inter alia, submitted that the appellant being the father and natural guardian has every right to claim the custody of his daughter-Dishita

He further submitted that there would be irreparable damage to the welfare of the minor daughter if she is allowed to remain with the custody of the respondent-mother.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent-Wife-Mother argued that the welfare of the minor daughter demands that her custody should remain with the respondent-mother who is a well-educated lady and is capable of providing quality education to her daughter and providing a better and safe home for her which is in the interest and welfare of her daughter.

The Question before the Court

Whether the father or the mother should have the custody of an almost now 13 years old female child?

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the father is presumed by the statutes to be better suited to look after the welfare of the child (who is 5-year-old or above), being normally the working member and head of the family.

However, the Court said, in each case, the Court has to see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the question of his or her custody.

Further, noting the depositions made by the Appellant-Father-Husband before the trial court, the Court observed that he is very reticent and reclusive type of person who has secluded himself from the social circle and friends.

Further, the Court opined,

"The Respondent-Mother is an educated lady and when the custody of the daughter was given to her mother during the examinations period, her results were good, meaning thereby, the respondent-mother is more capable of providing quality education to her daughter than the appellant father which is the most essential ingredient for the welfare, betterment and all-round developments of the minor girl."

The Court also noted that the role of the mother in the development of a child's personality can never be doubted and that mother shapes a child's world from the cradle by rocking, nurturing and instructing her child.

"Particularly, the company of a mother is more valuable to a growing up female child unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons, a child should not be deprived of the company of the mother", opined the Court.

Significantly, the Court remarked,

"Mother is a priceless gift, a real treasure and an earnest heartfelt power for a child, especially for a growing girl of the age of 13 years which is her crucial phase of life being the major shift in thinking biologically which may help her to understand more effectively with the help of her mother and at this crucial teenage, her custody with the mother is necessary for her growth."

Lastly, concluding that all-round welfare and development of Dishita lies with her mother, the Court didn't find any illegality, impropriety, perversity, and irrationality in the impugned judgment of the Family Court.

However, the Court did grant the appellant-father, the visitation rights for meeting his daughter. The Court directed that he shall be at liberty to visit the child-Dishita twice a month preferably on 2nd and 4th Saturday(s) at the place and time mutually agreed between the parties.

Case title - Rajat Agarwal (Father) v. Sonal Agarwal (Mother)