Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a High Court order directing the restoration of custody of a 14-year-old girl to her biological father. The child, one of twin daughters born on 20.03.2010, had been living with her paternal aunt (appellant No. 2) and her husband (respondent No. 10) since she was 3-4 months old, as the biological father faced financial difficulties. The biological father filed a habeas corpus petition in 2021, which the High Court allowed, ordering the child's return. The Supreme Court, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, held that the welfare of the child is paramount. The child had been well-settled with the appellants for 14 years, and the biological father's delayed action and lack of genuine interest weighed against him. The court directed that the child remain with the appellants, with visitation rights to the biological father, and ordered the appellants to deposit ₹10 lakh in FDR and transfer property worth ₹50 lakh for the child's benefit.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Custody of Minor - Welfare of Child Paramount - Parens Patriae Jurisdiction - The court held that in matters of child custody, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration, not the rights of the parties under personal law. The child, aged 14, had been living with the appellants since infancy and was well-settled. The court directed that the child's stability and best interest should not be disturbed by transplantation at this stage. (Paras 2, 9, 12-14) B) Family Law - Custody vs Guardianship - Distinction - The court clarified that the present dispute pertains only to custody, not guardianship or adoption. Under Mohammedan law, adoption is not permissible, and Kafalah allows custody without severing ties with biological parents. (Paras 6.3, 9) C) Family Law - Conduct of Parties - Delay and Acquiescence - The court noted that the biological father delayed filing for custody for over four years after the child was with the appellants, and his wife's habeas corpus petition was withdrawn. This conduct indicated lack of genuine interest in the child's welfare. (Paras 6.5, 7) D) Family Law - Best Interest of Child - Stability and Continuity - The court emphasized that stability is crucial for a child's development. The child had been with the appellants for 14 years, and any change would be detrimental. The court directed that the child remain with the appellants, with visitation rights to the biological father. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether custody of a 14-year-old child should be restored to biological father or continue with maternal aunt and her husband, considering the child's welfare and stability.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside. Child to remain in custody of appellants. Biological father granted visitation rights. Appellants to deposit ₹10 lakh in FDR and transfer property worth ₹50 lakh for child's benefit.
Law Points
- Parens patriae jurisdiction
- welfare of child paramount
- custody vs guardianship
- stability of child
- Mohammedan law Kafalah
- best interest of child
