Mother received Custody of Child’s against grandparents: PB&HR HC
D.D:13.06.2022
Monday, while considering a custody dispute, the Punjab & Haryana High Court noted that a mother’s lap is a natural cradle where a child’s safety and welfare can be assured, and that there is no substitute [Rashneet Kaur v State of Haryana].
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi stated that a mother must have custody of her child unless it can be proven that she is completely incapable of providing for her child.
“No amount of wealth or mother-like love can replace a mother’s love and care, and therefore maternal care and affection are essential for a child’s healthy development,” remarked the sole judge.
The Court awarded custody of a 4-year-old child to the mother instead of the grandparents.
The court was considering a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the girl’s mother.
When the child’s paternal grandparents brought her from Australia, where she was born and living, to India, a dispute arose.
The parents were also in Australia, and the mother was scheduled to travel to India shortly.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner’s travel plans fell through, and the minor child stayed with the grandparents for approximately two years.
The petitioner arrived in India in March 2022, and when she attempted to remove her daughter from the custody of her grandparents, they refused and left their home shortly thereafter with the child.
They stated that they were willing to share custody with the petitioner and that the child did not wish to stay with her mother. The petitioner, on the other hand, emphasized that since the girl child was less than 5 years old, her custody normally rested with her mother.
The court agreed with this argument, stating that the child’s welfare was the most important factor and that it should be weighed against the acknowledged superiority of a mother’s love and affection for her children.
In addition, Justice Bedi believed that the child may have refused to leave with the petitioner because she had left her company and spent over two years with her grandparents.
“Even if the father’s claim that the child refused to go with the mother is accepted as true, it is irrelevant because a child of such a young age does not know what is in her best interests,” the court stated.
Therefore, in the long-term best interest of the child, it cannot be said that she would be better cared for by the grandparents.
“In fact, respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8 have offered no compelling reason why child custody should not be awarded to the mother,” the court emphasized.
In addition, the judge stated that the concept of shared custody was illogical and unreasonable given that the petitioner resided in Australia and the respondents in India.
With this, it was ordered that immediate custody of the child be transferred to the mother. In this regard, the court also required an affidavit of compliance within one week of the child’s return.
Rashneet Kaur.
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors.
