Supreme Court favors Paternal Grandparents in Child Custody Battle: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs. State of Gujarat (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the appropriate custodian for a minor child who has lost both parents.

CASE TYPE: Child Custody/Habeas Corpus

Case Name: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: June 09, 2022

Date of the Judgment: June 09, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 518

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can the age and financial status of paternal grandparents be the sole deciding factors in denying them custody of their orphaned grandchild? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a minor child lost both parents to the Covid-19 pandemic. The court had to determine whether the child’s custody should be with the paternal grandparents or the maternal aunt. This judgment clarifies that while the welfare of the child is paramount, the traditional role and emotional bond of paternal grandparents should not be overlooked. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice Aniruddha Bose concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around a minor child, Pranav Acharya, who tragically lost both his parents to Covid-19. His father, Rajesh Acharya, passed away on May 13, 2021, and his mother, Rakhi Acharya, on June 12, 2021. At the time, Pranav was residing with his maternal aunt, the respondent No. 4, while his parents were ill. Following the parents’ demise, the paternal grandfather, the appellant, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of Pranav, alleging that the maternal aunt was not allowing them to meet the child or take his belongings. The High Court of Gujarat initially granted interim custody to the paternal grandfather but ultimately handed over the custody to the maternal aunt.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The paternal grandfather initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his grandson, Pranav Acharya. The High Court initially granted interim custody to the paternal grandfather. However, the High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the maternal aunt, directing the paternal grandfather to hand over the child’s custody. The High Court reasoned that the maternal aunt, being younger, employed, and having a larger family, would be better suited to care for the child. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the concept of “welfare of the child” in the context of custody disputes. While the judgment does not explicitly cite specific sections of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it implicitly refers to the principles underlying the Act, which emphasizes the welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration. The court also considered the emotional bonds and traditional family structures prevalent in Indian society.

Arguments

Appellant (Paternal Grandfather) Arguments:

• The paternal grandfather argued that the High Court erred in handing over the custody to the maternal aunt without valid reasons.
• He contended that there were no findings that he would not be able to take care of his grandson.
• He argued that the High Court’s presumption that the paternal grandparents, due to their age, would not be able to provide adequate care, was incorrect.
• He submitted that the High Court’s reasoning that the maternal aunt has a bigger family and is better suited to take care of the child was flawed.
• He highlighted that the child had not made any complaints against the paternal grandparents and, in fact, had expressed a desire to stay with them.

Respondent (Maternal Aunt) Arguments:

• The maternal aunt argued that the High Court’s decision was based on the welfare and best interest of the child.
• She contended that she is a spinster, in good health, and capable of providing care and attention to the child.
• She submitted that she is a 46-year-old M.Com graduate, employed by the Central Government with a decent salary, making her more financially stable than the retired paternal grandfather.
• She argued that the High Court considered all relevant factors, including her qualifications, employment, and the benefits of a joint family environment.
• She emphasized that she had already admitted the child to a reputable school in Dahod.
• She relied on the judgments of Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra [(2019) 20 SCC 753] and Ashish Ranjan vs. Anupma Tandon and Anr. [(2010) 14 SCC 274], stating that the paramount consideration in child custody cases is the welfare and interest of the child.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in handing over the custody of the minor to the maternal aunt, rather than the paternal grandparents?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court acknowledged the principle laid down in Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra [(2019) 20 SCC 753] and Ashish Ranjan vs. Anupma Tandon and Anr. [(2010) 14 SCC 274]* that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. However, the Court distinguished the facts of the present case and held that the welfare of the child would be better served by granting custody to the paternal grandparents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the emotional bond between paternal grandparents and their grandchild, stating that grandparents often have a deeper emotional connection with their grandchildren. The Court also noted that the High Court did not observe any shortcomings in the care provided by the paternal grandparents during the interim custody period. The Court considered the child’s expressed desire to stay with his paternal grandparents and the fact that they had already secured his admission to a school in Ahmedabad. The Court also noted that the High Court had made an error in presuming that the maternal aunt would be a better caregiver solely based on her age, financial status, and family size.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, considered that the High Court had erred in presuming that the maternal aunt would be a better caregiver solely based on her age, financial status, and family size. The Court emphasized that the emotional bond between paternal grandparents and their grandchild is significant and that the grandparents are naturally inclined to provide better care. The Court also noted that the minor had expressed a desire to stay with his paternal grandparents. The Court clarified that while the welfare of the child is paramount, it includes considering the emotional and traditional family structures.

The Supreme Court stated, “In our society still the paternal grandparents would always take better care of their grandson. One should not doubt the capacity and/or ability of the paternal grandparents to take care of their grandson.” The Court further added, “Emotionally also the grandparents will always take care better care of their grandson. Grand Parents are more attached emotionally with grandchildren.” The Court also noted, “Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt the balance and not to give the custody of the grandson to the paternal grandparents.”

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning and held that the balance tilted in favor of the paternal grandparents. The Court also clarified that this order was subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, pending before the competent court.

Key Takeaways

• The emotional bond between paternal grandparents and their grandchild is a crucial factor in custody decisions.
• Age and financial status alone cannot be the sole criteria for determining who is a better caregiver.
• The traditional role of paternal grandparents in Indian society should not be overlooked.
• The welfare of the child includes considering the child’s emotional well-being and connections with family members.
• Courts should not make presumptions about a caregiver’s ability based solely on age, income, or family size.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the custody of the minor child, Pranav Acharya, should continue with the paternal grandparents. The Court also directed the paternal grandparents to ensure the child’s better education in a school in Ahmedabad. The maternal aunt was granted visitation rights, preferably once a month, subject to the child’s convenience. The Court also suggested that the child should be allowed to visit and stay with the maternal aunt during vacations and holidays, subject to the child’s wishes and convenience. The Court also directed that there should be regular video calls between the child and the maternal aunt. The Court requested both the paternal grandparents and the maternal aunt to maintain cordial relations for the larger interest of the child.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, the emotional bond between paternal grandparents and their grandchild is a significant factor that should not be overlooked. The Court also clarified that there should not be a presumption that a maternal aunt would be a better caregiver solely based on her age, financial status, and family size. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the traditional role of paternal grandparents in Indian society and their emotional connection with their grandchildren.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs. State of Gujarat highlights the importance of considering emotional bonds and traditional family structures in child custody cases. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the welfare of the child includes not only financial and physical well-being but also emotional security and familial connections. This judgment serves as a reminder that age and financial status are not the sole determinants of a capable caregiver and that the emotional bond between grandparents and grandchildren should be given due consideration.

Category

• Family Law
  • Child Custody
  • Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
  • Welfare of the Child
• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
  • Section 7, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs. State of Gujarat case?

A: The main issue was determining who should have custody of a minor child who lost both parents: the paternal grandparents or the maternal aunt.

Q: What did the High Court decide in this case?

A: The High Court initially granted interim custody to the paternal grandfather but ultimately ruled in favor of the maternal aunt, stating that she was better suited to care for the child due to her age, financial stability, and larger family.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?

A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and granted custody to the paternal grandparents, emphasizing the emotional bond between grandparents and grandchildren and the traditional role of paternal grandparents in Indian society.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider in its decision?

A: The Supreme Court considered the emotional bond between the child and his paternal grandparents, the child’s expressed desire to stay with them, the lack of evidence of inadequate care by the grandparents, and the High Court’s error in presuming the maternal aunt would be a better caregiver based solely on age and financial status.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future child custody cases?

A: This judgment emphasizes that while the welfare of the child is paramount, it includes considering the child’s emotional well-being and connections with family members. It also clarifies that age and financial status are not the sole determinants of a capable caregiver.