SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(AP) 359

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, RAMA RAO
Mohd.Jameel Ahmed Ansari - Appellant
Versus
Ishrath Sajeeda - Respondent
Decided On : 10-05-82

The father's right to custody of his child under Muslim law is paramount, but the court must also consider the welfare of the child and whether the father is a fit guardian.

Headnote:

GUARDIANSHIP - CUSTODY OF CHILD - FATHER'S RIGHT - WELFARE OF CHILD - MUSLIM LAW - GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 7, 17.

Fact of the Case:

The father of a child born in 1970 filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the child. The child's mother had divorced the father in 1970 and remarried in 1974. She left for Saudi Arabia in 1976 and had three children from her second marriage. The father also remarried in 1975 and had a son from his second wife.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court dismissed the father's application, holding that merely because the petitioner happens to be the father he must not necessarily be given custody of the minor. On appeal, the High Court found that the child was willing to stay with the maternal grandparents, who had been caring for him since birth. The High Court also found that the father had not taken any interest in the child for eleven years and that it would be psychologically harmful to the child to be transplanted from his current surroundings.

Issues: 1. Whether the father, as the legal guardian, is entitled to the custody of the child? 2. Whether the welfare of the child is a paramount consideration in determining custody? 3. Whether the father's remarriage and lack of interest in the child for eleven years disqualify him from being a fit guardian?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Muslim law, the father is entitled to the custody of a child after the age of seven years, unless the court finds that he is unfit or that it is not conducive to the child's health or welfare. 2. The welfare of the child is a paramount consideration in determining custody, but the court must also give proper regard to the legal rights of the parents. 3. The father's remarriage and lack of interest in the child for eleven years do not necessarily disqualify him from being a fit guardian, especially in the absence of evidence that he is unfit or that it would be harmful to the child to be in his custody.

Final Decision: The High Court's order dismissing the father's application for custody of the child was set aside, and the child was directed to be delivered to the father.

RAGHUVIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises under the Guardians and Wards Act No. 8 of 1890 as to the custody of a child born on 1/10/1970. His name is Mohd. Aquil Ahmed Ansari alias suheel in 1982 he is studying in VI th Class in the city of Hyderabad in standard public school at Kilwat at Lad Bazar. The parents of the child were married on Jam, 8, 1970 and were divorced on 28/12/1970. The wife married again on 30/08/1974 to one jawood Ali and left for saudi Arabia on 29/11/1976 she has three issues from the second marriage: the husband also re-married on 11/12/1975 and has another son by the second wife.

( 2 ) THE father of the child by application on 12/06/1973 sought the custody of his child, principally, on the ground that he is the legal guardian. In the application, he alleged his father, Mohd. Barket Ahmed ansari, mother Mukdoom Bee. His second wife, Aliya all are willing to take the custody of the child that among his three brothers Mohd. Khaleel ahmed Ansari , isiter, Zubaida Begum, the two in addition, are willing to look after the child. It is alleged, the mother left the child to her parents. Between the parties, an agreement on 28/12/1970 was referred wherein the parents inter alia, agreed, the mother will not claim Maher claim maintenance for the child till sharai period, known as Hizna which prescribes the age of seven years. The child it was agreed will be entrusted to the father before the expiry of sharai period if she so desired. In the petition, it is further alleged the mother was studying B. Sc in womens college at Kothi (even after birth of child) and as student, from morning to the evening, moves about and cannot look after the child. He sent his friends, relatives. Neighbours and all his attempts failed. Finally the father issued a lawyers notice on 29/05/1973 in which it was alleged the father was not allowed to see the child. The mother not even accepted the clothes, fruits. Chocolates and biscuits brought for the minor but bluntly refused. In reply notice on 24/06/1973, it was stated, the child was 2 years and 8 months, therefore, cannot live without mother, cannot be looked after properly except by the mother. The mother resisted the petition in the Court she averred, for the first time, in June 1973 a paltry sum of Rs. 25 was sent; except that the child was neglected for three years by the father. Even this amount was sent with the ulterior motive to substantiate the illegal claims over the minor. It was added the father is an L. D. C. in Unani Dispensary at Narayanguda, therefore not a person to be entrusted with the child.

( 3 ) THA Additional chief Judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the application 26/07/1978 holding merely because the petitioner happens to be the father he must not necessarily be given custody of the minor. On appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the circumstances; interviewed the child in chambers and found the child was willing to stay with maternal grand-parents. It was found, from the birth of the child, till the date of Judgment ( 25/01/1982), for eleven years, the child grew up at grand-parents house. That the father never took interest in the child for eleven years. That from saudi Arabia. The mother is sending money for the upkeep of the boy, that the mothers father is a retired Tahsildar; owns buildings in Hyderabad and lands. His two other sons are in saudi Arabia and they are sending monies to him for maintenance therefore the maternal grandfather was in a position to take good care of the child. The learned single Judge observed, the father did not take any interest in the minor. The father has married again and has also a child. It is true that his present wife also averred in the Court that she would take care of the minor. But that was before the child was born. There is no knowing as to how she would treat the minor when he is sent to the petitioner-appellants house and it would psychologically affect him if he is asked to go and stay wi
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top