In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the father’s better financial status cannot be the sole decisive factor in awarding custody of a child. The court’s decision came while disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his minor son, who is currently living with his mother in India.
Background of the Case
The case involved a father, residing in Dubai, who filed a habeas corpus petition against his estranged wife, claiming that their minor son had been illegally detained by her and her father after they travelled to India from Dubai in March 2022.
The father argued through his legal representatives that he had permitted his wife to travel to India with their son, expecting them to return. However, following a fallout, the wife refused to return to Dubai and subsequently filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the father, alleging dowry demands and domestic violence. The father, citing his superior financial standing and stable life in Dubai, claimed that he was better positioned to provide for his child’s education and overall development.
On the other side, the mother, represented by her legal counsel, contended that she, as the natural guardian and primary caregiver, was entitled to retain custody of the child. She alleged that the father was unfit for custodial rights due to serious personal issues.
Legal Issues Involved
The case raised several crucial legal issues:
1. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition: The court had to determine whether a habeas corpus petition could be maintained for the custody of a child, considering the child was in the custody of his natural guardian, the mother.
2. Jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: Another important question was whether the ordinary courts in India had jurisdiction over the matter, given that the child was a resident of Dubai.
3. Best Interests of the Child: The paramount question before the court was determining the best interests of the child, including factors such as the financial capacity of the parents, the child’s upbringing, and the environment most conducive to the child’s welfare.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta, rejected the argument that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the bench observed:
“Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court. The writ is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.”
On the issue of the father’s better financial status, the court clarified that while the father’s ability to provide for the child financially is a factor, it cannot be the sole determining criterion for custody. The bench stated:
“The fact that the minor child will have better prospects upon return to his/her native country may be a relevant aspect in a substantive proceeding for the grant of custody of the minor child but not decisive… The best interest of the minor child is paramount, which includes the emotional and psychological well-being of the child.”
The court further observed that the minor son had been residing in India with his mother for over two years, attending school and engaging in various extracurricular activities. The mother’s improved financial status and employment were also taken into account. Thus, the court concluded that the child’s custody with the mother did not pose any serious risk to his welfare.
The court ruled that the better financial position of a parent does not necessarily imply that the custody should be granted in their favor. It stressed that the welfare and best interests of the child remain the paramount considerations. As a result, the court dismissed the father’s petition for custody, allowing the child to remain in his mother’s care in India.
