Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

High Court Emphasizes Child Welfare as Paramount in Custody Disputes, Allows Access to Both Parents

04 September 2024 9:54 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that highlights the importance of child welfare in custody disputes, the Hon'ble High Court delivered a landmark judgment on 9th June 2023, emphasizing the paramount consideration of the child's best interests. The judgment, which came in response to a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of minor children, sheds light on the maintainability of such petitions and the rights of both parents in access to their children.

Representing the petitioner, advocate [Name of the Advocate] argued for the custody of the children to be transferred to the mother, citing allegations of illegal detention by the father. However, the court meticulously examined the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the welfare and well-being of the children as the primary concern.

The judgment relied on various legal provisions, including Article 226 of the Constitution of India, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The court also drew reference to several relevant cases to support its conclusions.

Drawing from established legal principles, the court firmly established that the primary duty of the court in custody matters is to ascertain whether the custody of the child is unlawful or illegal and to determine whether a change in custody is in the child's best interests. The court stressed that the child's welfare should prevail over legal rights and that the child should have access to the love, affection, and protection of both parents.

Importantly, the judgment recognized that custody disputes should not be decided solely based on the view of one spouse, but rather on what is in the child's best interest. The court acknowledged that a child, especially one of tender years, requires the care, affection, and company of both parents. It further emphasized that even if the parents are in conflict, the child should not be denied the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents.

In this particular case, the court found that the children were residing with their father with the consent of the mother, who herself had agreed to their admission to a school in India. The court deemed this custody arrangement as lawful and acknowledged that the children were studying and residing with their father in a stable environment.

Considering the children's well-being and their current routine, the court ruled that the custody of both children, a son and a daughter, should remain with the father. However, the court granted the mother permission to meet the children during her visits to India and allowed her to have communication with them via mobile or video calls. The court also permitted the mother to provide gifts for the children's well-being, with the condition that the gifts be safe for their health.

Moreover, the judgment affirmed that the mother has the liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, or the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, if she wishes to seek custody of the children through legal channels.

Date of Decision: 9th June 2023

Mirah Pandey  vs  State Of U.P.

Latest Legal News