Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
Rana Bhavik Jagdishchandra - Appellant
Versus
Rana Darshana Arvindkumar - Respondent
First Appeal No. 3612 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jaimin A. Gandhi
For the Respondents: Anurag V. Agrawal, Shriraj D. Shah

The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding parental claims.

Headnote:
(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Custody of minor child - Appeal filed by husband challenging Family Court's rejection of custody application - Court emphasized the paramount interest and welfare of the minor child in custody matters - The Family Court found the husband to be aggressive and greedy, impacting the child's welfare - The parties reached an amicable settlement regarding custody and visitation rights. (Paras 1, 5, 17)

(B) Custody Determination - The welfare of the child is the primary consideration in custody disputes, and the court must prioritize this over parental claims. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought custody of his minor daughter Keya after marital discord led to the wife leaving with the child. The Family Court rejected the custody application, citing the child's welfare and the father's aggressive nature. (Paras 3.1, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Family Court's decision was based on the welfare of the child, leading to the rejection of the father's application for custody. (Paras 5, 6)

Issues: The main issues included whether the father proved the mother was not taking care of the child and whether he was entitled to custody. (Paras 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody cases, and the father's aggressive behavior was detrimental to the child's best interests. (Paras 5, 6)

Result: Appeal disposed of in terms of the amicable settlement reached by the parties.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed under the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant husband - original applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 26.11.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as the "Family Court") vide Exh. 60 in Civil Misc. Application No.02 of 2016 (Old No.47 of 2015) filed under the provision of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 for getting custody of minor daughter Keya. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Family Court rejected Civil Misc. Application No.02 of 2016 filed by present appellant.

2. Heard Mr. Jaimin A. Gandhi learned advocate for the appellant-husband and Mr. Anurag V. Agrawal, learned advocate for the respondent- wife.

3. It appears from the record that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the appellant. Their marriage came to be solemnized with consent of the family members of both sides, on 11.12.2009 under the Hindu customs and rituals and they have been residing at Vadodara after marriage and they have a minor daughter named 'Keya'.

3.1 Due to marital discord between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent wife had voluntarily left the home of the appellant along with her daughter Keya. Thereafter, the appellant being a father of minor daughter Keya had preferred Civil Misc. Application No. 02 of 2016 (Old No. 47 of 2015) before learned Family Court, Bharuch under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his minor daughter Keya.

3.2 After hearing both the parties and after evaluating the evidence placed on record, learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the appellant - husband vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2018 in Civil Misc.Application No.02 of 2016.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Family Court, the appellant husband has preferred present appeal.

4. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that learned Family Court has framed following issues for determination of the application filed by the appellant:-

"(1) Whether the applicant proves that the opponent is not taking care of minor Keya?

(2) Whether the applicant proves that is entitled for the custody of minor Keya as against the opponent?

(3) What order?"

5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the arguments advanced by both the sides, learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the husband. Learned Family Court has, on the basis of the observation and legal ratio laid by Hon'ble High Courts of various States and the Honb'le Supreme Court of India, made an observations in paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 that at the time of deciding custody application of minor child, the paramount interest and welfare of the minor is required to be considered and it should be given a top priority. Further, learned Family Court has also observed that the appellant is very greedy and his nature is of aggressive and rebellious type.

6. After aforesaid observations, learned Family Court replied issue Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and thereafter, passed impugned judgment and order and rejected the application filed by the appellant husband.

7. In fact, wife has also filed proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act being H.M.P. No.124 of 2014 before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bharuch and vide order dated 26.11.2018, said H.M.P. No. 124 of 2014 came to be allowed and the marriage solemnized between the present appellant and respondent wife was declared as null and void and the decree of divorce came to be passed in the said proceedings. The said order was challenged by present appellant by way of preferring First Appeal No. 3614 of 2019. The said First Appeal being First Appeal No.3614 of 2019 came to be withdrawn by the appellant on 29.04.2022, since the appellant was not interested in pursuing the said appeal.

8. On 24.03.2023 this Court passed following orde