Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 752

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Joydeep Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Payal Banerjee – Respondent
F.A. No.189 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar
For the Respondents: Mukesh Kumar Dubey

In child custody disputes, the welfare and best interest of the minor are the paramount considerations, superseding the rights of parents. Appellate courts will not interfere with custody orders unless the finding is perverse, lacks evidentiary support, or ignores logic.

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 7, 17 and 25 - Child Custody - Visitation rights - Marriage dissolved by mutual consent decree - Parties agreed child would reside with mother and no further legal claims would be filed - Appellant sought custody and visitation rights - Court must act as parens patriae prioritizing welfare of child - Welfare includes physical comforts, moral and ethical development, and intellectual well-being - Parents' rights secondary to child's welfare - Previous binding agreement regarding custody is a relevant factor despite overriding parens patriae jurisdiction. (Paras 41, 45, 47, 50, 62)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Interference with trial court findings - Appellate court should not intervene unless findings are perverse, lack evidence, or defy logic - Appellate court will not substitute its own view if the lower court's decision is based on sound reasoning and consideration of welfare of the child. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 67)

Facts of the case:
The parties to the appeal were married and subsequently divorced by mutual consent under a special enactment. A decree was drawn up stating that the minor child would remain in the custody of the mother and that the parties agreed not to initiate further litigation against each other. The father/appellant later filed a suit seeking custody and visitation rights, claiming a denial of his rights as a biological father. The trial court proceeded ex-parte and dismissed the suit, noting the existing agreement and the child's established living arrangement.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the principle of 'welfare of the minor' is the paramount concern in all custody matters, superseding personal laws and strict agreements. However, it found the appellant had specifically agreed to the custody arrangement during the divorce. Given the child's current stable environment and the appellant's lack of a demonstrated plan for the child's care, the court confirmed the lower court's decision to deny the modification of custody and visitation rights.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in refusing custody and visitation rights to the biological father, and whether the previously entered mutual consent decree regarding child custody precludes a subsequent claim for visitation or custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that while custody rights are governed by statute, the overriding principle is the 'welfare of the child.' Courts are not strictly bound by previous agreements, but such agreements are significant factors. Since the appellant failed to show that a change in custody or visitation would be in the best interest of the child and ignored the existing mutual agreement to the contrary, the dismissal of the suit by the lower court was not perverse or illegal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to custody and visitation petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. appellant's claim based on rights of a natural father. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. respondent's counter-claim citing prior mutual divorce agreement. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
5. court upholds custody arrangement based on prior mutual agreement. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)

Prayer

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment dated 07.06.2024 and decree signed and sealed dated 13.06.2024 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court-II, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.210 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/appellant herein under Section 7 and 17 read with Section 25 of the Guardianship and Ward Act, 1890 for custody and visitation rights of his minor son Aalap Chakraborty, has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petition, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

3. It is the case of the petitioner-husband (appellant herein) that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent-wife (respondent herein) was solemnized as per the Special Marriage Act on 03.02.2016 at Purulia West Bengal. From the happy wedlock, a son, namely, Master Aalap Chakraborty was born on 11.11.2017. The differences arose between the parties and they amicably decided to resolve their dispute by filing a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act.

4. The marriage was eventually dissolved, vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 486 of 2021 and a decree was drawn accordingly.

5. However, the petitioner being the biological father of the issue born from the said wedlock sought intervention of the Court for allowing him to visit and take custody of the minor son Aalap Chakraborty. The petitioner has been trying to communicate with the respondent and her family members but they have been incommunicado and therefore, having failed to take the custody or even visit his minor son, the petitioner has no remedy accordingly preferred the suit for custody and visitation right of his son.

6. It has further been stated that the petitioner having failed to even speak to the respondent, served the respondent with a legal notice dated 04.01.2023, wherein, the petitioner also demanded that the minor son may be allowed to at least meet the petitioner. The respondent, thereafter, replied to the said legal notice through her lawyer refusing to let the petitioner to meet his minor son.

7. It has been stated that the petitioner had first contacted the respondent in December 2021 after the grant of divorce to allow him to meet his minor son. The cause of action further arose on 16.01.2023 when the respondent in reply to the legal notice categorically denied the visitation rights of the petitioner to meet his minor son.

8. Accordingly, prayer had been made before the learned Family Court to allow the suit and grant the petitioner (appellant herein) to enjoy visitation rights towards his minor son, Aalap Chakraborty and/or to allow the minor son of the parties to travel to the house of the petitioner in Purulia during his vacations and/or allow the petitioner to meet his minor son until the final disposal of the present case and/or allow the petitioner to meet his minor son twice every month and also allow him to stay with his son for 2 days once every 15 days and pass any other order.

9. To secure the appearance of the respondent-wife, the notice was issued through post and notice was also published in the newspaper but as th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 752

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJJoydeep Chakraborty – AppellantVersusPayal Banerjee – RespondentF.A. No.189 of 2024

In child custody disputes, the welfare and best interest of the minor are the paramount considerations, superseding the rights of parents. Appellate courts will not interfere with custody orders unless the finding is perverse, lacks evidentiary support, or ignores logic.

Cases Referred (8)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Joydeep Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Payal Banerjee – Respondent
F.A. No.189 of 2024