Family Courts Dealing With Child Custody Cases Are In An Advantageous Position Over High Courts: Supreme Court

A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, "Regular Civil/Family Court dealing with child custody cases is in an advantageous position. The Court can frequently interact with the child. Practically, all Family Courts have a child centre/play area…If an access is required to be given to one of the parties to meet the child, the Civil Court or Family Court is in a better position to monitor the same."

Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta represented the appellants, while AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan appeared for the respondents.

The mother of the child unfortunately died an unnatural death allegedly by hanging. Following her death, the child's father and his parents sought custody of the child, which the High Court granted, holding that the appellants illegally took over custody of the child. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had failed to consider the welfare of the minor child, who was only 11 months old when the High Court’s order was passed.

The Supreme Court explained that even if a High Court, in a petition of Habeas Corpus, finds that custody of the child by the respondents was illegal, it can decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if were of the view that it will not be in the welfare and interests of the minor to disturb his/her custody.

The Court observed that when Courts deal with the issue of Habeas Corpus regarding custody of a minor, they cannot treat the child as movable property and transfer custody without even considering the impact of the disturbance on the child.

“As far as the decision regarding custody of the minor children is concerned, the only paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. The parties' rights cannot be allowed to override the child's welfare. This principle also applies to a petition seeking Habeas Corpus concerning a minor,” the Bench explained.

The Court noted that the High Court did not deal with and consider the issue of the welfare of the child. “The High Court has disturbed the child's custody based only on the father's right as a natural guardian,” the Bench stated.

“The child has not seen the father and grandparents for over a year. At the tender age of two years and seven months, if custody of the child is immediately transferred to the father and grandparents, the child will become miserable as the child has not met them for a considerably long time,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court directed the appellants to give access to the father and paternal grandparents of the child to meet the child once a fortnight and remarked, “When the Court deals with the issue of Habeas Corpus regarding a minor, the Court cannot treat the child as a movable property and transfer custody without even considering the impact of the disturbance of the custody on the child. Such issues cannot be decided mechanically. The Court has to act based on humanitarian considerations. After all, the Court cannot ignore the doctrine of parens patriae.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Somprabha Rana & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 664)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta; AOR Nikhil Jain; Advocates Saurabh Singh and Divyansh Singh

Respondents: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan and Yadav Narender Singh; Advocates Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, Ruby, Santosh Kumar, Madhurendra Sharma, Rajiv R. Mishra and Suruchi Yadav

Click here to read/download the Judgment