Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 384
PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. P. B. BAJANTHRI, MR. SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, JJ
Bimlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Kapildev Narayan Ray – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No.319 of 2020 | Guardianship Case No. 02 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overruling the statutory rights of the natural guardian when it conflicts with the child's best interests.
Headnote:(A) Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 25 - Custody of minor child - The appellant's request for custody of his daughter was denied as respondents provided a stable environment and the child's welfare was deemed paramount - The minor expressed unwillingness to live with the father - The court's findings emphasized the strong emotional bond and adequate care provided by the maternal grandparents - The appellant was granted visitation rights and required to provide financial support for the child's education and maintenance. (Paras 8, 17, 20, 27, 28)
(B) Welfare of child - The court stressed that the welfare and best interest of the minor shall prevail over legal rights of custodial claims. (Para 18)
(C) Guardianship and custody distinction - The court clarified that while the father is a natural guardian, this does not guarantee custody if it contradicts the child's welfare. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and late Prabha Kumari were married, and they had a daughter, Shanvi Yadav. Following Prabha's tragic death, Shanvi was raised by her maternal grandparents, while the appellant remarried. The appellant sought custody due to concerns over the grandparents' ability to care for the child.
Findings of Court:
The learned Family Court held that custody should remain with the grandparents until Shanvi's majority, emphasizing her welfare and well-being.
Issues: The main issues concerned the guardianship rights of the appellant and the suitability of the grandparents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that emotional bonds, stability of environment, and the child’s own preferences are key factors in custody disputes; the welfare of the child is paramount, requiring careful consideration beyond statutory rights.
Result: Appeal dismissed, with the arrangements by the Family Court upheld as reasonable and appropriate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. custody petition details and background (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues framed by the family court (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. family court judgment rationale (Para 8) |
| 4. appellant's arguments for custody (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. respondents' arguments against custody transfer (Para 13 , 18) |
| 6. emotional bond and current situation of the child (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. paramount consideration of child's welfare (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. guardian rights vs custody decisions (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. precedents regarding custody decisions (Para 24 , 25) |
| 10. court's final remarks and order (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. conclusion and compliance directions (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA)
Date : 07-04-2025
Heard learned senior counsel for the parties.
2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of the Family Court Act , 1984 against the judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Guardianship Case No. 02 of 2018 whereby and where under the application under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 for transfer of custody of minor female child from respondents to the appellant has been rejected with certain directions therein.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Bimlesh Kumar and Late Prabha Kumari (daughter of respondents) were married on 17.01.2013. A female child namely Shanvi Yadav was born on 17.02.2015 from their wedlock. Appellant is a Bank Manager in the State Bank of India. In year 2015-16 he was posted at Delhi where deceased (Prabha Kumari) conceived (second pregnancy) in January 2016. For proper care and delivery of her second child she alongwith minor daughter went to her parental home at Muzaffarpur in the month of July, 2016 where she met with an accident in bathroom which resulted in injury causing her death on 08.08.2016. The minor daughter remained with her maternal grandparents (respondents) for her better care. In this backdrop, appellant is stated to have got transfer of his posting from New Delhi to Patna in the month of September, 2016. Thereafter, he married for the second time to Puja Kumari on 18.04.2017. From the second marriage, they have blessed with a son, namely Priyesh Yadav. The girl child from first marriage of the appellant was staying with her maternal grand parents (respondents) at Muzaffarpur and when the appellant went to meet his minor daughter, he was not allowed to meet and talk with her. When the appellant, after several efforts, not succeeded to meet and talk with his minor daughter the appellant filed the petition under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 for custody of girl child namely Shanvi Yadav.
4. The case of the appellant is that the respondents are old aged who are not capable to look after and to provide good life style to the minor child and they are themselves dependent physically and financially on others. Accordingly, it is in the welfare of minor child to grant her custody to the appellant who is capable to take care in better ways being natural guardian of the minor girl child.
5. The case of respondents is that late Prabha Kumari, the daughter of the respondents, was not living a happy life with appellant and the girl child was born at Bathua Nursing Home at Muzaffarpur in presence of respondent and she was serious during her pregnancy and against the medical advice, she was taken to the house of the respondents by the appellant, thereafter, the appellant returned to Delhi which shows his negligent behaviour towards deceased Prabha Devi and her daughter. The appellant left the minor daughter with the respondents and solemnized his second marriage within one year of the death of his first wife. Respondent No. 1 is a retired Engineer and he receives adequate pension to lead a standard life style and they are capable enough to take care of the minor child and providing her a good quality life.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were
