The High Court of Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by a paternal grandfather seeking custody of his grandchildren, affirming that a mother’s rights as a natural guardian take legal precedence over those of other family members unless she is proven to be unfit or negligent. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, ruled that the welfare of the children, combined with their clearly expressed preference, necessitated maintaining the current living arrangement with their mother. The court underscored that a mother cannot be arbitrarily deprived of the custody of her children, nor can the children be removed from her care in the absence of evidence suggesting parental incompetence.

The legal challenge arose from a judgment passed by the Family Court on May 15, 2026, which had originally declined the grandfather's request for the custody of Master Shantanu Grover and his sister, Mannat Grover. The children, whose father passed away in December 2016, had remained under the care of their mother. The grandfather had approached the Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, arguing that as a working professional, the mother was unable to provide a suitable environment or dedicate sufficient time to the children's upbringing. He sought to secure custody by contending that the grandparents could offer a more stable and nurturing atmosphere.

Evaluating Children's Wishes and Welfare During the proceedings, the appellate court reviewed the interaction between the Family Court and the children, who were approximately 17 and 14 years old at the time the lower court’s order was finalized. The record confirmed that the children, having reached an age where they possess the capacity for rational thought, expressed a clear and independent desire to reside with their mother. By the time the appeal reached the High Court, the elder daughter had attained the age of majority. The judges noted that there was no indication that the children had been tutored or influenced in their decision-making.

The court emphasized the fundamental principle that while the welfare of a minor is the paramount consideration in any custody dispute , the natural guardianship of a mother is a superior legal status. As noted in the judgment, "The respondent/mother cannot be deprived of the children and the children cannot be deprived of their mother." This standard requires that a court find clear evidence of neglect or incapacity before considering the displacement of a natural guardian . In this instance, the evidence presented showed that the mother, an Income-Tax Officer, was financially independent, maintained her own accommodation, and was adequately fulfilling her responsibilities toward her children.

Setting Aside Peripheral Disputes The appellate proceedings also addressed attempts to introduce historical matrimonial discord into the custody matter. The appellant had raised concerns regarding allegations of cruelty from the period preceding his son’s death in 2016. The High Court clarified that such historical grievances are not the primary focus of custody determinations under the Guardians and Wards Act. The court maintained that the central task in such litigation remains focused on the present well-being and future welfare of the children rather than revisiting past matrimonial conflicts. The bench found the Family Court’s decision to be well-reasoned, noting that the trial court had appropriately prioritized the children's independent wishes and the absence of any compelling reason to displace the mother.

Drawing on existing jurisprudence, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. , which held that a natural guardian’s claim cannot be displaced merely because a child has spent time residing with relatives. The court reiterated that even when grandparents share a bond with grandchildren, that bond does not automatically override the rights of a surviving parent who is performing their duties capably. The court concluded that there were no extraordinary circumstances in the present case that would justify interfering with the existing familial structure.

Rights to Visitation and Ongoing Contact While the appeal for full custody was dismissed, the High Court addressed the matter of visitation rights, which remain a point of interest for the grandparents. Given that the elder grandchild is now a major, the court specified that it cannot legally mandate contact, nor can it impose restrictions on her choice to meet or not meet her grandparents. However, the order leaves the door open for the grandfather to pursue a more appropriate legal path should he desire structured visitation.

The bench directed that the appellant is free to file a specific application for visitation rights before the Family Court. If such an application is moved, the Family Court is instructed to evaluate the request on its own merits, placing significant weight on the willingness of the grandchildren to participate in those visitations. By directing the parties toward this procedural mechanism, the High Court affirmed that, while custody remains with the mother, the door for continued family interaction is not permanently shut, provided it is approached through the correct legal channels and respects the evolving independence of the minors. The dismissal of the appeal concludes the current custodial litigation, confirming the mother’s continued role as the legal and primary guardian of the children.