"Will Inculcate Discipline, Expose Child To Different Regions & Cultures": MP High Court Weighs In Father's Paramilitary Background To Grant Custody

While granting custody to the father, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Anand Pathak observed that his paramilitary background would work to the advantage of the child for his overall growth and personality development-

In the case in hand, 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 would appear clearly…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.

Facts of the case were that the Respondent/father was married to the daughter of the Appellants and had a child with her. Due to their differences, the Couple got separated and the wife went back to live with the Appellants and took the child with her. Later, the wife committed suicide. A criminal case was registered against the Respondent under Section 304-B, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC and u/s 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of which he was acquitted.

After the death of his wife, the Respondent moved an application under Section 6 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his son from the Appellants/maternal grandparents. The lower court allowed his application, thereby directing that he shall have the custody of the child. Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred an appeal against the same.

The Appellants submitted before the Court that the Respondent/father was a Constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police. As his work required him to serve long hours, he would not be able to provide the care and attention to the child. It was also pointed out that his job was transferable and that his salary was not sufficient to raise the child. The Appellants further argued that the child was not inclined to live with the Respondent and preferred his maternal grandparents over his own father. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and they be granted the custody of the child.

Per contra, the Respondent/father argued that he had a stable source of income and was the natural guardian of his son after his wife's death. He asserted that it would be better for the child to live with him as he would be exposed to the lifestyle of paramilitary force, which would be good for his overall growth. It was also pointed that maternal grandmother of minor is step grandmother of child and not the real / biological one. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal be dismissed and he be allowed to have the custody of his child.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the contentions put forth by the Respondent/father. The Court observed that the welfare of the child was paramount and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the child would be better off with the father-

When matter is tested on the anvil of welfare of minor and the comparative resources of the parties and emotional attributes involved in the case then after balancing of the totality of the circumstances, only one conclusion appears inevitable. The conclusion is that Ayush's welfare lies in living with his father. The judgment relied upon by the appellants move in different factual realm, therefore, not applicable in the present set of facts. In the cumulative consideration and findings given, this Court is of the considered opinion that no occasion exists to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly we confirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court made it clear that after handing over the custody of the child to the father, the Appellants would have visitation rights to interact with child and to take note of his overall wellbeing.