‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother
In a significant judgment on July 21, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child's welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the grounds that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child after the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child's emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances.
Justice Shailesh P Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The court held that the father's legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years.
A significant factor in the High Court's reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The court emphasised that the child's preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding.
Further, the court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father's household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child's comfort and care.
Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent.
The court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child's needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother's custody.
Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v Jiten Bhalla, the court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law but must take into account the child's mental, emotional, and developmental needs.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court's order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child's schooling, mental peace, or daily routine.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
Bombay High Court child custody muslim personal law
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
HC ‘unwillingly' grants 3-week extension to vacate top 18 floors lacking OC of Tardeo highrise
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday 'unwillingly' and on 'humanitarian considerations' granted three more weeks to occupants of the top 18 floors of a 34-storey highrise in Tardeo, south Mumbai — that did not have occupation certificates (OC) — from vacating their premises, at their own risk and face consequences in event of any untoward incident. The court clarified that occupants of floors 17 to 34 of the Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society tower will have to give an undertaking in that regard within two days, failing which Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) can take action and seal their flats at the cost of occupants failing to file an undertaking before the court. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing pleas pertaining to the highrise occupied by 50 flat purchasers of a total of 62 flats. The society in its interim application had sought more time to vacate the flats from the 17th floor to the 34th. This comes after the Supreme Court on August 1 dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) by the society that challenged a Bombay HC order from last month that directed 'selfish' residents occupying the top 18 floors and without OCs to vacate their premises within two weeks, the period of which was to expire on August 2. The bench led by Justice Kulkarni had last month clarified that members residing from floors 17 to 34 'would be entitled to occupy the tenements, only after OC is granted.' The bench had also raised concerns over no fire NOC to the entire highrise. The court had pulled up occupants of the tower for 'brazen illegalities' for years and being 'least bothered' about their own and others' lives and had said it cannot permit perpetuating illegalities as the same was deprecated. The bench had said the said occupants were earlier told to make alternate arrangements. The SC bench led by Justice J B Pardiwalla on August 1 had appreciated 'courage and conviction exhibited by the High Court in taking stern steps against such unauthorised constructions'. The SC had asked petitioners to approach HC in case they wanted some more time to vacate the premises. Senior advocate Dinyar Madon for the society claimed that it was difficult for 27 families occupying 18 floors to find alternate accommodation on leave and licenses basis within a short span, therefore the time be extended. 'We were hopeful about SC… There are difficulties. 50 percent of these people belong to the Jain community and Paryushan and Ganesh Utsav will start soon. There are school going children. Getting alternate accommodation for 27 families in short time is difficult,' Madon argued. 'We never had an inclination from the beginning. Everyday we are perpetuating illegality (by continuing occupation) and it cannot happen. You are making a mercy plea that you may be permitted to occupy for more time in the teeth of the law,' the judges orally remarked. 'In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accept prayer (seeking extension of 12 weeks). However, only on humanitarian consideration and quite unwillingly we grant further extension of 3 weeks (from August 6) to the occupants of 17 to 34 floors to vacate their respective tenements and undertaking to that effect be placed before this court within 2 days, ' the HC recorded in its order The court permitted concerned families to occupy the flats for three more weeks at their own risk and disposed of the society's application. The HC said that it will consider the issues related to floors 1 to 16 having part-OC without fire approval during the next hearing on August 13.
Deccan Herald
7 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Fighting hate and other poisons
The Karnataka government has issued a 25-point Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in response to two alarming cases of water poisoning in government schools, one in Belagavi and another in Shivamogga. While both incidents raise grave concerns about child safety, the Belagavi incident is particularly sinister. Here, several students were hospitalised after a drinking water tank was poisoned in a communal plot to malign the school's Muslim headmaster and engineer his transfer. The three accused, including Sri Ram Sene leader Sagar Patil, have been remanded to judicial fact that children were targeted to further a hate-driven agenda exposes the grotesque extremes of religious fundamentalism. That the perpetrators believed they could act with such brazenness speaks of a deeper malaise: the normalisation of bigotry in politics. It is indeed concerning that when political ideologies turn into blind hatred, even innocent children are not spared. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has rightly questioned if Sri Ram Sene chief Pramod Muthalik or BJP leaders like B Y Vijayendra and R Ashoka would take responsibility for the incident. Yet, the BJP's silence has been deafening – no condemnation, no demand for a probe, no outrage. When children's lives are endangered, selective outrage is not just hypocrisy; it is government's SOP is a welcome and necessary step. Headmasters are now required to inspect school premises before classes begin, check for contamination or odour in water, and ensure water tanks are locked. Lavatories must be kept clean, first-aid kits must be maintained, and inspection details updated daily on the Students' Achievement Tracking System (SATS) portal. The Deputy Director of Public Instruction (DDPI), Block Education Officers (BEOs), and nodal officers are required to conduct regular checks. But this is not enough; the SOP will remain only on paper unless senior officers face consequences for lapses. Children should never be collateral damage in someone else's war; their lives should not be compromised, whether by poisoning, prejudice, or poor hygiene. However, the larger battle is against the ideological poison that has enabled this crime. The Belagavi incident cannot be seen as merely criminal. The accused should be prosecuted under the harshest laws. But beyond the courtroom, society must confront the hatred that fuels such violence. Politicians who stoke division, fringe groups that act with impunity, and citizens who remain indifferent are all to blame. The choice before us is clear: stand together and resist this toxic agenda or remain passive as hatred corrodes the very fabric of our society.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Chhattisgarh High Court acquits man convicted for murdering kin on grounds of ‘legal insanity'
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently acquitted a 25-year-old man who was awarded a life sentence for murdering his father and grandmother, after his counsel was able to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind. Holding that Dhamtari resident Mahesh Verma, who had been convicted for the 2021 double murder, fitted the term legally insane, the court said that the Investigating Officer admitted that during the investigation, he did not procure any documents relating to psychiatric treatment of the accused from his family members. It further said that despite a preliminary report clearly referring to the appellant as a mental patient, no certificate from the treating psychiatrist was obtained, and the trial court merely relied on a report from the inquiry under Section 328 CrPC (which assesses competency to stand trial), not the mental status at the time of the act which is the legally relevant consideration under Section 22 BNS (or section 84 of the IPC referring to an Act by a person of unsound mind – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law). The HC held that an accused who seeks exoneration from liability for an act under Section 84 has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Legal insanity 'Since the term insanity or unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Penal Code, it carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity,' the verdict delivered by Judge Bibhu Datta Guru and Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha said. Mahesh's counsel, Abhishek Sinha, had argued before the High Court that his client was suffering from insanity at the time, and a non-examination of his mental state created a serious infirmity in the case. Mr. Sinha said the accused had suffered a head injury during Covid 19 lockdown, and his mental state was not good, and he had been under treatment for the last year at Raipur Mmental Hospital. The incident On April 13, 2021, at around 11 pm, Mahesh, who was kept locked in his room because he was mentally unstable, demanded that his mother, Rekha, open the door so he could get water. His mother was fearful and did not open the door; she called her husband, Pannalal Verma, who subsequently opened the door. When his family asked him why he was creating a commotion, Mahesh said, 'I am Hanuman ji, Bajrang Bali, and Durga.' He then pushed away his mother and started attacking his father and grandmother, Triveni. His mother went to seek help from the neighbours but by the time she returned, Pannalal and Triveni were dead. The matter went to a Sessions court which convicted Mahesh for double murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment in February 2024.
