Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Family Court's Order Granting Motherless Minor's Custody To Father Over Maternal Grandparents

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently affirmed an order of the family court granting the custody of a motherless minor child to his father over his maternal grandparents. With this, the HC dismissed an appeal preferred by the maternal grandparents against the family court's order.

Testing the case on the anvil of the welfare of the minor and the comparative resources of the parties, the bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Anand Pathak came to the conclusion that the child's welfare lay in living with his father.

The Court also noted that as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is the Natural guardian of the minor.

The bench, however, ordered that the maternal grandparents will have visitation rights to interact with the child and to take note of the overall wellbeing of the minor every Saturday and Sunday between 11 am to 2 pm and/or any day and time mutually fixed by them.

The case in brief 

In 2018, the Respondent (father) filed an application under Section 6 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his son- Ayush, who was living with her maternal grandparents at the relevant point in time.

He submitted that after the birth of the child, his wife went to her maternal home with his minor son, where she died by suicide in April 2017, and since, the maternal grandparents of the child are not looking after him properly, he be granted the custody of the child.

It was also claimed that since he is a Govt. Employee, a Constable in Indo-Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P.), therefore, he is in a better position to take care of his child and also, he is the natural guardian of the child, therefore, custody be provided to him.

On the other hand, the present appellants/grandparents (respondents in original proceedings) contested the case arguing that criminal proceedings are pending against the Respondent-Father under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 506, and 34 of IPC against the respondent and he may be convicted therein. It was also argued that the respondent is in a transferable job, therefore, he cannot look after his child properly. 

The Family Court, after considering the rival submissions and evidence that surfaced over the record passed the impugned order; whereby, the respondent being a father was found to be the natural guardian and looking to the welfare of the child gave his custody to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the maternal grandparents moved the instant appeal before the High Court.

The High Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that if the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 are seen in juxtaposition, it would appear that the welfare of minors is of paramount consideration while considering the custody, in appointment or declaration of a person as guardian of Hindu minor by a Court.

Against this backdrop, the Court examined the status of the contesting parties and found that the circumstances were weighing in favor of affirming the child's custody with the father-respondent. In this regard, the Court observed thus:

"...the respondent / father is working as Constable in I.T.B.P., a paramilitary force and earning regular salary. Regular source of income guarantees a continuous flow of money, modest though, but certainly sufficient to look after the interest of child. Secondly, being a member of Indian Paramilitary Force, he leads a disciplined life and therefore, discipline would inculcate into the family set up and would help the minor to grow in disciplined manner which if compared to the life likely to be led with maternal grandparents then the difference wouldappear clearly. Thirdly, father has shown his keen interest to bring upon his child and take him under his supervision...Beside that, being employee of Central Paramilitary Force, minor will get better exposure in life and would have access to different regions and cultures and therefore, growth of his personality would be more prominent in guardianship of his father rather than in company of his maternal grandparents."

Regarding the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent, the Court noted that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the acquittal was recorded in favor of the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Case title - Anand Kumar and anr. v. Lakhan Jatav [FIRST APPEAL No. 2526 of 2018]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 261

Click Here To Read/Download Order