Second Marriage or Live-in Is Not an Automatic Disqualification, But It’s a Crucial Factor For Child Custody: Chhattisgarh HC

“Welfare of the minor is the only lens through which custody must be decided — not financial status, not legal guardianship”, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Arvind Kumar Verma, dismissed a father’s appeal for the custody of his minor son, reiterating that the paramount consideration in child custody disputes is the welfare of the child, not the statutory entitlement of the parent. In a case where the father was living with another woman without divorcing his wife, the Court held that such conduct “amounts to cruelty and misconduct,” disqualifying him from claiming custody.

Laxmikant Joshi, challenging the order of the Family Court, Bemetara dated 21.04.2022, which had rejected his application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of his son Master Yash Joshi.

“Custody Is Not a Matter of Right — It Is a Matter of Responsibility”

The appellant had argued that he was the natural guardian of the child under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and being financially superior to the mother, he was better positioned to raise the child. However, the Court noted that Section 6 must be read in conjunction with Section 13, which mandates that “the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration.”

“The right of the father as a natural guardian is not absolute. Section 13(2) clearly states that no person shall be entitled to guardianship if the court is of the opinion that such guardianship will not be in the welfare of the minor.”

The Court emphasized that statutory guardianship under Section 6 cannot override the child’s emotional, moral and physical well-being.

“Second Marriage or Live-in Is Not an Automatic Disqualification, But It’s a Crucial Factor”

The turning point in the case was the father’s admitted cohabitation with another woman, Suman alias Lileshwari, whom he claimed to have married at a local temple, without having obtained a divorce from his first wife. The Court found that this created an unstable environment for the child, and cited it as a serious factor against granting custody to the father.

“Though second marriage per se is not a bar to custody, it is a relevant factor when assessing the child’s welfare. The minor cannot be placed in an uncertain emotional environment with a stepmother when he is secure and emotionally settled with his biological mother.”

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed (2010) 2 SCC 654, where it was observed that although second marriage may not automatically disentitle custody, it is “an important factor to be taken into account”, particularly where the outcome of custody proceedings remains uncertain.

“Financial Affluence Cannot Trump Emotional Security”

The father had repeatedly argued that the mother had no independent source of income, and that the child’s needs would be better met in his household. But the High Court firmly rejected financial superiority as a decisive factor.

“Giving sole or more importance to financial capacity would not be proper. Welfare depends on a balance of all factors – physical, mental, emotional – not merely monetary ability.”

The Court echoed the settled law from Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 112, and Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42, holding that the welfare of the child is not defined by affluence but by emotional and moral stability.

“Parens Patriae Duty of Courts Must Prevail Over Parental Claims”

In a detailed analysis invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction, the High Court made it clear that the welfare of the child is not just a legal doctrine — it is a constitutional and moral obligation of the court.

“It is not the welfare of the father, nor the welfare of the mother, but the welfare of the minor that is the paramount consideration.”

The Court found that the minor had been in the custody of the mother, who had been providing a stable and caring environment. There was no material to show that she was unfit or incapable of caring for the child.

“This Court cannot be oblivious to the future aspect that there is no certainty the child will receive better love, affection or atmosphere from a stepmother than he has been receiving from his own mother since birth.”

“Family Court Findings Free from Legal Error — No Appellate Interference Warranted”

Concluding that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the facts and applied the legal principles, the High Court found no perversity or infirmity in the lower court's decision.

“We are of the considered opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the application... We do not find any merit in this appeal.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the custody of Master Yash Joshi was held to remain with his mother, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.

In Child Custody, Welfare Is Supreme — Not Biology, Not Wealth, Not Male Guardianship

The judgment is a strong reiteration of modern judicial thinking in custody matters: that children are not trophies in parental disputes, and custody is not about parental rights, but about the child’s right to stability and love. A parent’s legal status as guardian or their financial capacity can be overridden when their personal conduct raises red flags about the child’s emotional security.

As the Court reminded, “Guardianship is not a title to be claimed, but a duty to be earned — through conduct that assures the welfare of the child.”

Date of Decision: 14 January 2026