"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Child’s Welfare Paramount, Not Biological Claims – Supreme Court in Custody Battle

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shazia Aman Khan And Another v. The State Of Orissa And Others, emphasized that in child custody disputes, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance over the claims of biological parents. The Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal underscored this principle while adjudicating a complex custody battle involving a 14-year-old girl.

The apex court’s judgement centered around the parens patriae jurisdiction, focusing on the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in custody disputes. The case dealt with the custody of a minor child, born a twin, and raised since infancy by her maternal aunt and her family, in contrast to the claims of the biological father.

The child, Sumaiya Khanam, later renamed Dania Aman Khan, had been living with the appellants since she was a few months old due to her biological parents’ financial difficulties. The father’s efforts to regain custody included filing an FIR, which was closed, and a private complaint that is still pending. The mother initially filed a habeas corpus petition, which was later withdrawn.

The Supreme Court thoroughly evaluated the circumstances, distinguishing between custody and guardianship, particularly under Mohammedan law. The Court noted the appellants’ willingness to ensure the child’s welfare and stability and recognized the child’s preference to remain with them. The Court engaged in a meaningful interaction with the child, who expressed a desire to continue living with the appellants.

Concluding that the child’s welfare and her preference are paramount, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The custody of the child will remain with the appellants, as uprooting her at this stage of life was deemed not in her best interest.

 Date of Decision: March 4, 2024

Shazia Aman Khan And Another v. The State Of Orissa And Others,

 

Similar News