We provide excerpts from the Judgment of the Supreme Court and Various High Courts on important aspects of Law.

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

The Supreme Court of India has dealt with this subject elaborately in a recent Judgment (reportable) on 5^th October 2012 in CIVIL APPEAL Nos.  7232-7233   of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 35468-69 of 2009)

Here are the excerpts:

Coram: Justice P SATHASIVAM and Justice RANJAN GOGOI

……. 12. The law relating to custody  of  minors  has  received  an  exhaustive consideration of this Court in a series of pronouncements. In Gaurav  Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal[1] the principles of English  and  American  law  in  this regard were considered by this Court to hold  that  the  legal  position  in India is not in any way different. Noticing the judgment of the Bombay  High Court in Saraswati Bai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved[2]; Rosy Jacob  v.Jacob A Chakramakkal[3] and Thirty Hoshie  Dolikuka  v.  Hoshiam  Shavdaksha Dolikuka[4] this Court eventually concluded in paragraph 50 and 51 that:

 “50.  That when the Court is confronted with conflicting demands  made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic  basis,  in  such  matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues.  The  Court  then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to  exercise  a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor.  As  observed recently in Mousmi Moitra Ganguli’s case the court  has  to  give  due weightage to the  child’s  ordinary  contentment,  health,  education, intellectual development and  favourable  surroundings  but  over  and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to  be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.

      51.   The word “welfare” used in section 13  of  the  Act  has  to  be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense.  The  moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh  with  the  Court  as well as its physical well being. Though the provisions of the  special statutes which governs the rights of the parents and guardians may  be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the  way of the Court exercising its parens  patriae  jurisdiction  arising  in such cases.”

13.   The views expressed in Para 19 and 20 of the report in  Mousmi  Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli[5] would require special notice. In the said  case it has been held that it is the welfare and interest of the  child  and  not the rights of the parents which is the determining factor for  deciding  the question of custody. It  was  the  further  view  of  this  Court  that  the question of welfare of the child has to be considered in the context of  the facts of each case and decided cases on the issue may not be appropriate  to be considered as binding precedents.  Similar  observations  of  this  Court contained in para 30 of the Report in Sheila  B.  Das  v.  P.R.  Sugasree[6] would also require a special mention.

14.   From the above it follows that an order of custody of  minor  children either under the provisions of The Guardians and Wards Act,  1890  or  Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is required to  be  made  by  the  Court treating  the  interest  and  welfare  of  the  minor  to  be  of  paramount importance. It is not the better right  of  the  either  parent  that  would require adjudication  while  deciding  their  entitlement  to  custody.  The desire of the child  coupled  with  the  availability  of  a  conducive  and appropriate environment for proper upbringing together with the ability  and means of the concerned parent to take care of the  child  are  some  of  the relevant factors that have to be taken  into  account  by  the  Court  while deciding the issue of custody of a minor. What must be  emphasized  is  that while all  other  factors  are  undoubtedly  relevant,  it  is  the  desire, interest and welfare  of  the  minor  which  is  the  crucial  and  ultimate consideration that must guide the determination required to be made  by  the Court.

15.    In  the  present  case  irrespective  of  the  question  whether  the abandonment of visitation rights by the wife was occasioned by the fraud  or deceit practiced on her, as subsequently claimed, an  attempt  was  made  by this Court, even by means of a personal interaction with  the  children,  to bring  the  issue  with  regard  to  custody  and  visitation  rights  to  a satisfactory conclusion. From the materials on record,  it  is  possible  to conclude that the children, one  of  whom  is  on  the  verge  of  attaining majority, do not want to go with their mother. Both appear to  be  happy  in the company of their father who also appears to be in  a  position  to  look after them; provide them with adequate educational facilities  and  also  to maintain them  in  a  proper  and  congenial  manner.  The  children  having expressed their reluctance to go with the mother, even for a short  duration of time, we are left with no option but to hold that  any  visitation  right to the mother would be adverse to the interest of  the  children.   Besides, in view of the reluctance of the children to even meet their  mother,  leave alone spending time with her, we do not see how such an  arrangement,  i.e., visitation can be made possible by an order of the court.

16.   Taking  into  account  all  the  aforesaid  facts,  we  dismiss  these appeals, affirm the impugned orders passed by the High Court  of  Delhi  and deny any visitation rights to the petitioner and  further  direct  that  the children would continue to remain in the custody of their father until  they attain the age of majority.

[1]    2009 (1) SCC 142[2]    AIR 1941 (Bom.) 103 [3]    (1973) 1 SCC 840 [4]    (1982) 2 SCC 544 [5]    (2008) 7 SCC 673 [6]    (2006) 3 SCC 62