Signing you in

Listen 00:00 0.5x 0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x AI Narration This audio is AI generated.

The Bombay High Court has upheld an order directing a maternal grandfather to hand over custody of his four-year-old granddaughter to her biological father. The girl’s mother had died a month after childbirth. The court observed that the father, being the child’s natural guardian, was entitled to her custody.

A bench of Justices Sandipkumar C More and Vaishali Patil Jadhav observed that the child’s mother is no longer alive, and hence the father, being the first natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is entitled to her custody.

“Preferential custody to the mother for a child below five years cannot be applied in the present case, as the mother is deceased. The respondent-father, therefore, has the legal right to the custody of the minor child, and there are no compelling circumstances to deny him that right,” the October 16 order said.

It added, “In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly held and observed that the welfare of the female child lies with the respondent-father, who is her natural guardian.”

The court said that Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, lays down that the father is the natural guardian of a Hindu minor.

According to the case records, the appellant is the child’s maternal grandfather, while the respondent is her biological father. The appellant’s daughter married the man on March 10, 2021, in accordance with Hindu rites and the girl was born on February 6, 2022.

A month later, on March 4, 2022, the mother suffered severe chest pain and died due to cardiac arrest. After her death, the husband stayed at her house till March 18, 2022, and performed all post-death ceremonies. After the ceremonies, he wanted to proceed to his house along with the child, but the child’s maternal grandfather and his family members requested him to keep the child with them for a few days.

Ultimately, the father moved the family court which directed the grandfather on June 30, 2025, to hand over the girl’s custody to the father within 60 days. Dissatisfied with the order, he moved the present appeal.

Advocate Bhushan V Virdhe, appearing for the grandfather, submitted that the family court failed to consider the welfare and best interest of the child while granting her custody to the father. The father had no independent income and he had not produced any documentary evidence to establish his employment or a regular source of earning, he added.

It was argued that the father lived separately from his parents, that there was no responsible person at his house to take care of the child, and that he was addicted to alcohol and was thus incapable of providing proper care, education, emotional support and necessities for the minor child.

It was further submitted that the maternal grandfather’s house provided a stable and secure environment for the child where she has been living with the appellant and his family since her birth and with whom she has developed a deep emotional bond. Virdhe added that the appellant had sufficient means to provide for the upbringing and welfare of the child and was physically fit and emotionally willing to care for the child.

Advocate Kiran D Jadhav, appearing for the father, supported the family court’s order and submitted that it was passed after due appreciation of the evidence on record and aligns with the child’s welfare. It was submitted that the respondent was the biological father of the child and, being the natural guardian, was entitled to her custody.

The father’s counsel also stated that he was willing to maintain the child’s relationship with her maternal grandparents and relatives, and had no intention of depriving her of the affection of her maternal family and sought dismissal of the appeal.

The bench said the doctrine of parens patriae, which means ‘parent of the country’, is a legal principle that confers upon the state the role of a guardian for those who are unable to protect themselves, particularly minors. “In the context of child custody disputes, this doctrine is the foundation upon which courts exercise their jurisdiction to decide the welfare of a child,” the court said, adding, “It empowers the court to look beyond the mere legal rights of the parties and act in the best interests of the child, who is the ultimate beneficiary of any custody arrangement.”

Noting that the respondent is the biological father and natural guardian of the minor child, the court dismissed the appeal, directing the grandfather to hand over the child’s custody to the father within 15 days from the date of this order.