Gujarat High Court Refuses Custody Of 2-Yr-Old To Mother Citing Voluntary Desertion, Child's Attachment To Father, Her Busy Work Schedule
The Gujarat High Court has recently declined custody of a minor son to his mother on the ground that her work schedule did not permit her to take care of the child as compared to the work schedule of the father. Further, Justice Umesh Trivedi, while applying the principle of paramount interest of child, opined that the Appellant-mother had a step-mother and it was doubtful whether she...
The Gujarat High Court has recently declined custody of a minor son to his mother on the ground that her work schedule did not permit her to take care of the child as compared to the work schedule of the father.
Further, Justice Umesh Trivedi, while applying the principle of paramount interest of child, opined that the Appellant-mother had a step-mother and it was doubtful whether she would take care of the minor son.
Thus, rejecting the mother's appeal against a Family Court order, the bench said,
"Learned Judge has concluded that work schedule of the appellant is such that she is unable to take care of the child in comparison to the work scheduled of the respondent-husband who is serving at Ahmedabad and he is available at any moment, in case of need…Moreover, one more reason weighed with the learned Judge that the appellant-wife has a step mother and in all probability, she may not very well take care of the child and therefore, considering the paramount interest of the child, learned Judge has refused the custody to the appellant-mother...I see no reason to entertain this appeal."
These observations came in the background of an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act challenging the order of the Family Court wherein the Appellant was not granted custody of her 2-year-old minor son.
Citing Section 6 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she submitted that the age of the child was 2 and therefore, ordinarily custody is granted to wife as per the statute. She averred that she was a 'working woman' and could take good care of the child.
However, the High Court noted that the Appellant had admitted leaving her son at the matrimonial home and since then she had not returned. Therefore, it could not be said that she was deserted or deprived of custody or that the child was 'snatched away' from her.
It dubbed the Appellant's plea that she was visiting her unwell father as 'specious' and the fact remained that she did not return to the matrimonial house which showed that she did not care about the custody.
"Since the age of 2 years child is raised by the husband uptill now, he has more attachment with the father and mother appears to have not cared for either having the custody or any attachment for the custody."
Additionally, it observed that she commuted from Ahmedabad to Viramgam for service from 8 am and would return at 8pm whereas the father was serving at Ahmedabad and would be available at any moment, in case of need.
Thus, it affirmed the decision of the Family Court and declined to interfere with the child's custody.
Case No.: C/FA/1932/2019
Case Title: CHANDRIKABEN HARGOVINDDAS PARMAR W/O JAYPRAKASH NARESHKUMAR JOSHI v/s JAIPRAKASH NARESHBHAI JOSHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341