The mother holds precedence as the natural guardian of a minor girl unless it is demonstrated that her care would negatively impact the child's welfare.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

1. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.04.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Mukhed, District Nanded below Exhibit-5 in Civil Misc. Application No.04 of 2025.

2. The petitioner had married with late Vitthal Shinde in the year 2018. The couple was blessed with a daughter namely Sanvi. On 30.07.2024, couple divorced by mutual consent. Custody of minor Sanvi was maintained with husband on undertaking of respondent no.2 that she will take care of her.

3. Unfortunately, on 05.01.2025, petitioner’s husband passed away. Thereafter, respondents/paternal grandparents of minor Sanvi filed Civil Misc. Application No.02 of 2025 before learned District Judge seeking declaration of their appointment as guardian of minor. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No.04 of 2025 claiming custody of minor Sanvi along with an application at Exhibit-5 for interim custody. Learned District Judge, Mukhed vide impugned order dated 22.04.2025 rejected application for interim custody. Hence, present writ petition.

4. Mr. Bagal, learned advocate appearing for petitioner submits that minor Sanvi is aged about 5 ½ years. After death of her father, only petitioner is natural guardian. Being mother, she is entitled for custody of minor. According to Mr. Bagal, the grandparents cannot claim better right of custody as against mother, who can take better care of minor daughter. Mr. Bagal would submit that respondents are old aged persons and facing several health issues. They are residing in rural area where the facilities of education are not upto mark. The petitioner is residing at Nanded where she can take better care and provide best educational facilities. According to Mr. Bagal, the welfare of minor can be well achieved by handing over custody to petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejaswini Gaud and Ors Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others , AIR 2019 SC 2318 , Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , 2025 (2) JT 296 and the judgment of High Court of Madras in case of R. Munuswamy and Another Vs. J. Raja in C.M.A. No.2162 of2018 decided on 14.09.2023.

5. Per contra, Mr. Bilolikar, learned advocate appearing for respondents submits that petitioner resided hardly for a period of one year with her husband after the marriage. The child was in custody of husband and paternal grandparents. Even when the couple separated under decree of divorce by mutual consent, custody of minor child was handed over to husband as per undertaking of respondent no.2/grandmother assuring court to take care of minor. He submits that the infant child was abandoned by petitioner. Mr. Bilolikar would further invite attention of this Court to the document depicting that respondents have ensured best education to minor Sanvi. He would further submit that when the child was interrogated by the learned District Judge, it was noted that she was comfortable in the custody of grandparents and reluctant to go with mother. According to Mr. Bilolikar, the welfare of child can be achieved by continuing her custody with respondents. He would submit that disturbing custody of child at this stage would have serious impact on her mental andphysical health. Mr. Bilolikar submits that the learned District Judge has taken into consideration all relevant material and ruled in favour of maintaining custody of minor with respondents. Therefore, no interference is called in the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. In support of his contention, he relies