In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld a father’s right to custody of his minor son, emphasizing that remarriage cannot be a ground to deny a natural guardian custody. The case, Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (SLP (Criminal) No. 14809/2024), was heard by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi, an Administrative Service Officer, sought custody of his minor son through a Habeas Corpus petition. The child had been living with his maternal grandparents since 2021 after his mother’s death. The Allahabad High Court denied custody, citing the child’s comfort in his grandparents’ home and the father’s remarriage.
Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court examined two core legal issues:
1. Is a Habeas Corpus petition maintainable in child custody cases?
– The Court referred to Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) and Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi (2024), holding that Habeas Corpus can be invoked when a minor child’s custody is unjustly denied to a natural guardian.
2. Does a father’s remarriage affect his right to custody?
– The Court ruled that a father’s remarriage does not negate his right as a natural guardian, provided he can ensure the child’s well-being.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, Justice K. Vinod Chandran emphasized the paramountcy of the child’s welfare, stating:
“The father, the natural guardian, is well employed and educated, and there is nothing standing against his legal rights and legitimate desire to have the custody of his child.”
The bench, also comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, criticized the High Court’s failure to assess the child’s attitude towards his father, observing:
“A father’s right to custody cannot be negated merely because he has remarried, especially when he has taken concrete steps for the child’s welfare.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and granted custody of the child to the father. However, recognizing the need for a gradual transition, the Court structured a phased custody arrangement:
– Until April 30, 2025 – The child will remain with his maternal grandparents to complete the academic year.
– Alternate weekends – The father will have custody during weekends leading up to the full transfer.
– May 1, 2025 – Full custody will be handed over to the father in the presence of the jurisdictional Station House Officer.
– Post-custody visitation rights – The maternal grandparents will be allowed to take the child for visits on weekends with a second Saturday, starting June 2025.
Arguments from Both Sides
– For the Father (Appellant): Advocate Gopal Jha argued that the father had secured his child’s financial future by transferring land, depositing ₹10 lakh in the child’s name, and ensuring a life insurance policy worth ₹25 lakh. His second wife also submitted an affidavit affirming her willingness to raise the child.
– For the Grandparents (Respondents): Advocate Rajeev Kumar Dubey relied on Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh (2024), arguing that the child’s preference should be prioritized and that custody disputes should be adjudicated under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 rather than through a Habeas Corpus petition.
