Home > Recent Judgements > Right To Custody Of Child Not Lost Just Because Temporary Custody Was Given To A Relative
August 24, 2024
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In Gaurav Kumar Das vs NCT of Delhi and Others, The appellant got married on January 27, 2012. Out of the wedlock, two children- one male children on September 11, 2023 and second child on April 20, 2021 were born. The appellant tragically lost his wife on April 30, 2021, while their daughter was just ten days old, because of a Covid-19 infection. Tragic incidents shortly followed, as on May 13, 2021, the appellant’s father passed away from a Covid-19 infection. The appellant, who was grieving the death of those he cherished, asked respondent No. 5, his sister-in-law, for assistance in caring after his kids. As an interim measure to get him through the tough time he was going through due to the death of his father and wife, the appellant gave his sister-in-law custody of his children. After a while, respondent No. 5 sought to retain custody of the minor daughter, claiming that the girl child was still very young and would need a female’s care and attention for a few more months. However, the appellant was granted custody of the minor son again.
ISSUE
Whether a natural guardian could be denied custody of his minor child simply because he had temporarily given the child into the care of a relative (his sister-in-law) following the sudden and tragic death of his wife.
JUDGMENT
On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that a man, who is the child’s natural guardian, cannot be denied custody of his minor child just because he gave the child to family members for a short while after the child was born because his wife passed away.
The appellant filed an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny him custody of his minor daughter from his sisters-in-law, who were caring for the child, after his wife passed away from a Covid-19 infection within ten days of the daughter’s birth. The appeal was granted by division bench.
The court emphasized in its ruling that there is no hard-and fast rule that can be formed concerning the maintainability of a petition for habeas corpus in cases involving minor child custody. It has been decided that each case’s unique facts and circumstances will determine whether the writ court may exercise its authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court’s order was quashed by the court, but the sisters-in-law were still allowed to see the child for two hours each week.
OBSERVATION
The bench stated that the appellant, who is the child’s only natural guardian, should not be denied custody of the minor child simply because of the unforeseen events that led to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the wife’s sisters) being granted temporary custody of the child only because they cared for her for a few years.
In view of this principle that welfare of the child is paramount, court ordered that sisters-in-law give the baby back to appellant with no delay. Being also biological guardian of child appellant must live together with her own family members to ensure her safety. This means that the small child is still very tender and will soon adapt well to his natural family unit according to judges sitting on bench.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
