Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Md. Adam, S/o Md. Aslam, R/o Muslim Mohalla, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro - Appellant
Versus
Md. Harbul, S/o Late Moiddin Ansari - Respondents
First Appeal No. 140 of 2023
Decided On : 27-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
In child custody proceedings, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. Courts prioritize continuity, the existing stable environment, and the practical capability of guardians to provide emotional and financial security over competing claims of guardianship based on external factors.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 6 - Child Custody - Welfare and best interests of the minor - Paramountcy of the welfare principle over all other considerations in determining custody. (Paras 16, 21)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Role of the Court - The court must examine whether the decision below reflects a proper appreciation of evidence concerning the child's stable environment, emotional health, and the financial capacity of the competing guardians to provide for the child's upbringing. (Paras 18, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The maternal grandparents initiated a suit seeking custody of a minor child, alleging that the minor's environment was compromised by the criminal conviction of the paternal relatives involved in the mother's death. The child had remained in the continuous care of the paternal grandparents since birth, supported by established domestic resources.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the child’s welfare is best protected by maintaining the existing living arrangement. The evidence demonstrated that the current guardians provided a stable, secure environment and maintained the child's education, while the arguments for transfer of custody were not substantiated by any demonstrated benefit to the child's well-being.
Issues: Whether the custody of the minor should be transferred from the paternal relatives to the maternal grandparents, and whether the criminal conviction of the paternal relatives essentially mandates a change in guardianship for the minor's welfare.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the welfare of the child is the sole and paramount consideration in custody disputes. Uprooting a child from a secure, long-standing home environment is detrimental to their emotional and psychological growth and is not justified where the current caregivers effectively ensure the child's stability and development.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties' status and underlying custody dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues framed and testimony of petitioners' witnesses regarding custody (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. evidence and contentions provided by the respondents (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. conflicting contentions regarding welfare and financial capacity (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. applying the welfare principle over criminal conviction impact (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. formal allowance of the appeal and order disposal (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.05.2023 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 341 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondents herein u/s 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been allowed.
3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.
4. The petitioners (respondents herein) had preferred a suit against the respondent (appellant herein) u/s 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of Khushboo and inter alia it has been stated that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner namely, Rozy Praveen was solemnized on 08.08.2015 with Md. Adam as per Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage, the daughter of the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental torture. It has been stated that out of the said wedlock a daughter was born to Rozy Praveen on 16.06.2016. On 24.12.2017 the petitioners received an information that their daughter had died at her matrimonial house and at the time of death she was pregnant. In this context, the petitioner no. 1 had instituted a criminal case against his son-in-law and the parents of his son-in-law being Chas P.S. Case No. 322 of 2017 u/s 304B of the IPC. The accused persons were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court on 08.05.2019. The FSL report revealed that organophosphorus pesticide was administered upon the daughter of the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 works as a Tailor and earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month while the petitioner no. 2 works at Infant Jesus School and earns an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent no. 1 and his parents are in custody and there is no other person to take care of the child. The respondent no. 2 is the aunt of Khushboo who does not have any source of income and is not in a position to maintain the child.
5. On being noticed the respondents had appeared and filed a written statement in which they have denied the allegations made of committing physical and mental torture upon the daughter of the petitioner. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro had acquitted the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 in S.T. No. 289 of 2018 and S.T. No. 138 of 2018 from the charge u/s 304B of the IPC. The respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been convicted but the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are on bail in appeal.
While granting bail to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 a condition was imposed for depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- as fixed deposit in the name of the child which shall be renewed from time to time. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 were therefore made the guardians of the child Khushboo. The petitioners in order to usurp the compensation to be granted to Khushboo under the Victim Compensation Scheme had filed a suit after such application for compensation was made. The petitioners are not in a position to able to maintain Khushboo and had filed a suit with an eye on the fixed deposit which is in the name of Khushboo. The respondent no. 1 is the father of the child, respondent no. 2 is the aunt who is well off and financially sound but the respondent no. 3 is the grandfather who has a shoe shop near Mahavir Chowk, Chas and he also is involved in floral decorations
