MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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