1. Father seeks custody of minor child from grandparents following mother's death — Habeas Corpus petition challenging denial of custody by Writ Court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14809 of 2024]
Decided On : 07-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Verma, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Samiksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Amitabh Poddar, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Raj., Adv. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Anjali Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Ms. Srujana Suman Mund, Adv. Ms. Saroj Tripathi, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Verma, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Samiksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Amitabh Poddar, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Raj., Adv. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Anjali Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Ms. Srujana Suman Mund, Adv. Ms. Saroj Tripathi, AOR
The welfare of the minor child is paramount in custody disputes, with the natural guardian's rights being upheld while ensuring the child's stability during transition.
Headnote:(A) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Custody of minor child - Writ of Habeas Corpus - The father sought custody of his minor child from the grandparents post the mother's death; the court emphasized the welfare of the child as paramount, allowing visitation rights to the father while retaining custody with the grandparents until the child's academic year ends. (Paras 3, 10, 11)
(B) Child Welfare - The court noted the father's stable employment and the grandparents' inability to fully care for the child, ultimately deciding that the child's welfare would be best served by transitioning custody to the father after the academic year. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The father of a minor child challenged the Writ Court's order denying him custody, as the child was living with his grandparents after the mother's death. The father had remarried and argued for custody based on his ability to provide for the child. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the welfare of the child would be best served by allowing the father visitation rights while retaining custody with the grandparents until the end of the academic year. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issues included the father's right to custody as the natural guardian and the welfare of the child in the context of the father's remarriage. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the father, as the natural guardian, has a legitimate claim to custody, albeit with a gradual transition to ensure the child's stability. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Appeal disposed of; custody arrangement established.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The welfare of the minor child is paramount in custody disputes, with the natural guardian's rights acknowledged while ensuring the child’s stability (Paras 3, 10, 11) (!) (!) (!) - The natural guardian (father) is entitled to custody, but a gradual transition with visitation and interim custody arrangements is permissible to serve the child’s welfare (Paras 10, 11) (!) (!) - Custody can be initially retained by the grandparents with directed visitation rights for the father, gradually transitioning to full custody in favor of the father by a specified date, taking into account the child’s education and stability (Paras 11) (!) - The court considered prior related decisions (Tejaswini Gaud, Gautam Kumar Das, Nirmala) to determine that extraordinary remedy under Article 226 can be invoked by the natural guardian in custody disputes when the other guardians lack legal rights, and that there is no hard and fast rule for habeas corpus custody petitions, depending on facts (Paras 7, 8) (!) (!) - The appeal was disposed of with a custody order: grandfather custody until 30.04.2025, with alternating weekend visitations to the father, and a transfer of custody to the father on 01.05.2025, subject to SHOs and post-handover visitation for grandparents thereafter; guardian petition closed (Paras 11, 12) (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Father asserts rights as natural guardian and financial stability — Respondents argue for detailed enquiry under Guardian and Wards Act and non-maintainability of Habeas Corpus. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Natural guardian's claim outweighs grandparents' — Remarriage not a bar to custody — Welfare of child best served with father given his status and lack of abuse. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Habeas Corpus for child custody is maintainable when the natural guardian seeks custody from parties without legal right, depending on the facts and circumstances. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Custody granted to father effective May 2025, with interim visitation and temporary retention with grandparents for academic completion. (Para 11 )
6. When is a writ of Habeas Corpus maintainable in matters concerning the custody of a minor child?
A writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the detention of the minor child is illegal or without authority of law. It is particularly permissible when a natural guardian seeks custody from parties who have no legal right to claim it, though maintainability depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Does the remarriage of a natural guardian adversely affect their claim for the custody of a minor child?
No, the remarriage of a parent does not stand against a claim for custody. In fact, it may be viewed positively as it ensures the child will be cared for by a step-parent while the natural guardian is engaged in professional duties. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. How does the court balance the rights of a natural guardian against those of grandparents in custody disputes?
The natural guardian generally has a superior claim over grandparents. In the absence of allegations of abuse or matrimonial disputes, and where the guardian is educated and well-employed, the welfare of the child is typically best served by granting custody to the natural guardian. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, father of a minor child, assailed the order of the Writ Court in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition which denied the custody of the child who was with his grand-parents; his mother having passed away.
3. The learned Single Judge who disposed of the Writ Petition interacted with the child who submitted that he is comfortably residing and pursuing his education at his maternal grandfather’s house. It was also noticed that the father had re-married. On the basis of the above findings, it was opined that the welfare of the minor child; which is of paramount consideration, would be served by letting him continue with his grandfather; while the father was granted visitation rights to meet the child regularly on the first day of every month at the venue fixed by the jurisdictional Station House Officer.
4. Mr. Gopal Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-father would rely on the decision of this Court in Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 588 which emphasizes the need of the minor child to be with the natural guardian; especially when the mother is no more. It is pointed out that the circumstances coming out in the above case are identical insofar as, after the death of the mother, the father being denied the company of the child. Obviously the child did not have any familiarity with the father, the death of the mother having occurred in the year 2021. It is also submitted that the paternal grandfather of the minor child has conveyed a property in the name of the minor child to ensure his welfare and also deposited an amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs in the child’s name. The father who is an Administrative Service Officer of the State, though re-married, is confident that the second wife would look after the child as a mother and draw support from the affidavit of his second wife who undertakes to take care of the child as her own and endorses fully her husband’s need and desire to have the child with them for the betterment of his future.
5. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relies on Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh and Others, 2024 INSC 370 in which this Court had emphasized the requirement of a detailed enquiry regarding the welfare of the minor child and his preference; which exercise could be carried out only in the proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.1 [For brevity “the Act”] It is pointed out that the appellant-father has already filed a Guardian O.P. and in that circumstance, the prayer for production of the child by a writ of Habeas Corpus was not at all maintainable. The fact that the father has re-married, soon after the death of the first wife was rightly considered by the High Court, in refusing the custody of the child to the father. It is argued that the appellant should be relegated to the remedy he has voluntarily invoked under the Act.
6. We have gone through the two decisions placed before us and Nirmala, according to us, relies on the peculiar facts of that case in which the mother was found missing and later found dead in a canal. An accusation was made against the father; during investigation of which case the father himself has appointed the grandmother as the guardian of the minor child and caretaker of a property which was gifted by a maternal aunt to the minor child. The case against the father was closed and he approached the Child Welfare Committee2 [for brevity “the CWC”] on the ground that the appellant-grandmother had employed fraud in taking away the child. The CWC granted custody of the minor child to the father, which was interfered with by the High Court finding lack of jurisdiction on the CWC, which led to a Habeas Corpus petition being filed by the father. The High Court found the welfare of the child to be best served in the hands of the father and granted visitation rights to the grand-parents, while keeping open the remedy available to agitate the cause of custody.
