Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak 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 Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Welfare of the Child is Paramount: Allahabad High Court Awards Custody to Biological Mother in Habeas Corpus Petition

15 November 2024 1:05 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has granted custody of three minor children to their biological mother, Smt. Seema, after she filed a habeas corpus petition. The court’s decision emphasizes the welfare and best interest of the children as the primary criterion in custody matters. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the mother’s right to custody is prioritized unless there are clear disqualifications.
The court first addressed the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition in child custody cases. It referenced multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana and Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State (NCT of Delhi), highlighting that a writ of habeas corpus is appropriate where a minor’s detention by a non-guardian relative is unlawful. The court stated, “Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ issued in exceptional cases where the ordinary remedy provided by law is ineffective.”
The court underscored that in custody disputes, the child’s welfare is paramount. Justice Saurabh Lavania remarked, “The welfare of the child must be decided on the consideration of all relevant factors, including the general psychological, spiritual, and emotional welfare of the child.” The judgment cited precedents such as Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and emphasized that the mother’s natural ability to cater to young children’s needs should be prioritized.
The judgment discussed the principles of evaluating custody claims, particularly under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Guardians and Wards Act. It reiterated that the biological mother’s right to custody is a well-established principle unless she is disqualified by clear exceptions, such as living an immoral life or marrying a stranger. The court noted, “In matters of custody of a minor child, the mother is entitled to it until the child is of tender age, unless there be a clear disentitlement inferable.”
Justice Lavania emphasized, “The mother has always been regarded to be best equipped to take care of the needs of a young child, and secure his/ her welfare compared to a father.” He also highlighted that any other relative holding the child in custody while the mother is around constitutes unlawful custody unless exceptional disqualification applies.
The Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant custody of the minors to their biological mother, Smt. Seema, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to prioritizing the welfare of children in custody disputes. The judgment serves as a critical precedent, reinforcing that the best interests of the child supersede other considerations. It also opens the door for the respondents to seek visitation rights through appropriate legal channels. This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on future custody cases, emphasizing the fundamental role of the biological mother in the upbringing of young children.
Date of Decision: 14th June 2024

 

Latest Legal News