In a landmark decision, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, on August 21, 2024, ordered the custody of a minor child to his mother, emphasizing that “the paramount welfare of the child” must be the deciding factor in such cases. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal in a habeas corpus petition [D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 254/2024].
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a 33-year-old school lecturer, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the custody of her minor son, who was in the care of his paternal grandparents. The child, born on October 18, 2022, was reportedly detained by his grandparents after the sudden demise of the petitioner’s husband in a road accident on February 18, 2024.
Following her husband’s death, the petitioner left her matrimonial home to join her government service position as a school lecturer in Tonk district. During this period, the child remained with his paternal grandparents, who subsequently refused to hand over custody to the petitioner. Consequently, she approached the court, arguing that as the natural guardian of her minor son under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, she was entitled to his custody.
Legal Issues Involved
The case presented several legal issues before the court:
1. Right of Natural Guardianship: The primary legal contention was whether the petitioner, as the biological mother and natural guardian of the minor child under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, was entitled to the child’s custody.
2. Welfare of the Minor: The court had to determine whether the minor’s welfare would be better served in the custody of his mother, who was a government-employed school lecturer, or his paternal grandparents, who had no regular source of income and resided in a rural area.
3. Allegations Against the Petitioner: The respondents (paternal grandparents) argued that the petitioner was allegedly responsible for her husband’s death by suicide and claimed that the minor would not be safe in her custody. They supported their claim with a pending criminal complaint and a suicide note purportedly left by the deceased.
Court’s Observations and Decision
After hearing both sides, the court made several critical observations. It emphasized that the “paramount welfare of the child” is the guiding principle in cases of child custody. The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors. (2019), which reiterated that no hard and fast rule applies to habeas corpus petitions concerning minor custody; instead, the decision should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The court noted the following in its judgment:
– Mother’s Right as Natural Guardian: The court reaffirmed that, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor child. The judgment highlighted, “The petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor child, and for the welfare of the child, his custody should be with his natural guardian.”
– Financial and Social Welfare of the Child: The court observed that the petitioner, being a well-educated government employee with a stable income, was in a better position to provide for the child’s future. In contrast, the respondents (grandparents) had limited means and lived in a rural area, which might not be conducive to the child’s development. The bench stated, “The respondent, who is the grandfather of the minor child, is aged and has no regular income, whereas the petitioner is a school lecturer with a handsome salary, capable of ensuring the child’s welfare and bright future.”
– No Adverse Evidence Against the Petitioner: The court also took into account the status report submitted by the government, which found no adverse evidence against the petitioner. The court stated, “Nothing adverse has been reported against the petitioner in the status report.”
Final Verdict
The court allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner immediately. The judgment also instructed the Station House Officer (SHO) to ensure that no harm comes to the petitioner and her son while they return to their residence.
