In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to determine child custody without considering the welfare of the child. The court emphasized that custody must be decided based on humanitarian considerations and the best interests of the child. The ruling came in the case Criminal Appeal No. 3821 of 2023, where the court set aside a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had granted custody of a minor to her paternal relatives.
Background of the Case
The case involved a custody dispute concerning a minor child, whose mother died under unnatural circumstances in December 2022. The child’s paternal relatives filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, claiming that the child’s maternal relatives had illegally taken custody of her after the mother’s death.
The paternal relatives argued that the child’s custody should naturally revert to them, given the father’s status as the natural guardian. However, at the time of filing the petition, an FIR had been registered against the father and his parents for offenses under Sections 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The High Court granted the writ of habeas corpus and directed the maternal relatives to hand over the child. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, with the appellants arguing that the High Court failed to consider the child’s welfare, who had been in their custody since she was 11 months old.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a writ of habeas corpus could be used to determine the custody of a minor child without a proper assessment of the child’s welfare. The court examined whether the High Court had erred in applying the legal right of the father as a natural guardian over the humanitarian and welfare considerations required in such cases.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, emphasized that while a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy, it is a discretionary writ and should be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving minors. The court observed:
“The High Court has disturbed the child’s custody based only on the father’s right as a natural guardian. 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.”
The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court failed to address the child’s welfare, which is the paramount consideration in any custody dispute. It emphasized that a court must act based on humanitarian considerations and cannot ignore the doctrine of parens patriae (the state as the guardian of minors).
The court ruled that custody issues, particularly involving minors, should preferably be decided in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act), where the court can comprehensively assess the best interests of the child, interact with the child regularly, and even appoint experts if necessary.
Key Observations of the Court
– The Supreme Court reiterated that the welfare of the child is the only paramount consideration in custody matters, and the rights of parties cannot override this principle.
– The court highlighted that custody decisions involving minors should not be made mechanically or based solely on legal guardianship rights. Instead, they must consider the child’s emotional and psychological well-being.
– The court criticized the High Court’s decision, stating that it had failed to conduct any inquiry or consider the welfare of the child, who was only one year and five months old at the time of the judgment.
– Justice Oka noted that “only in substantive proceedings under the GW Act can the appropriate Court decide the issue of child custody and guardianship,” emphasizing that Family Courts are better suited for such matters.
Conclusion and Orders
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and provided the following directions:
1. The appellants were directed to give the father and paternal grandparents access to meet the child once a fortnight under the supervision of the District Legal Service Authority in Panna, Madhya Pradesh.
2. The appellants or any of them were permitted to apply for custody of the child before the appropriate Court under the GW Act within two months.
3. The competent Court was instructed to deal with the matter of custody and access on its merits, ensuring that the child’s welfare remains the central focus.
