Supreme Court grants child custody to father, emphasizes natural guardianship: Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P. (2025) INSC 159 (7 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7 February 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 159
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.

When parents separate or one parent passes away, the question of who gets custody of the child can be a difficult one. Recently, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of child custody, particularly the rights of a father after the mother’s death. The court considered a case where the father was seeking custody of his minor child who was living with his maternal grandparents. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a father’s plea to regain custody of his minor child after the child’s mother passed away. The father, Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi, filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition seeking the custody of his child, who was then living with his maternal grandparents. The High Court denied his plea, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: This Act provides the legal procedures for appointing guardians and making decisions regarding the welfare of minors.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers High Courts to issue writs, including habeas corpus, to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

Arguments

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Father):

• Relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and another [ (2024) 10 SCC 588 ], emphasizing the need for the minor child to be with the natural guardian, especially after the mother’s death.
• Submitted that circumstances were identical to Gautam Kumar Das, where the father was denied the company of the child after the mother’s death.
• Highlighted that the paternal grandfather had conveyed property in the minor child’s name and deposited Rupees Ten Lakhs in the child’s name to ensure his welfare.
• Argued that although he had remarried, his second wife would care for the child as her own, supported by her affidavit.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of U.P. & Ors.):

• Relied on Nirmala Vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. [2024 INSC 370], emphasizing the requirement of a detailed enquiry regarding the welfare of the minor child and his preference, which could only be carried out in proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
• Pointed out that the appellant-father had already filed a Guardian O.P., making the prayer for production of the child by a writ of Habeas Corpus not maintainable.
• Argued that the father’s remarriage soon after the death of the first wife was rightly considered by the High Court in refusing the custody of the child to the father.
• Contended that the appellant should be relegated to the remedy he has voluntarily invoked under the Act.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the custody of the child should be granted to the father, considering he is the natural guardian and has remarried.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in denying the father’s plea for custody based on the child’s comfort with the maternal grandparents and the father’s remarriage.
3. Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in this case, given the pending Guardian O.P. filed by the father.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and another [(2024) 10 SCC 588]: This case emphasized the need for a minor child to be with the natural guardian, especially after the mother’s death. The Supreme Court followed this precedent to support granting custody to the father.
• Nirmala Vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. [2024 INSC 370]: This case emphasized the requirement of a detailed enquiry regarding the welfare of the minor child. The Supreme Court distinguished this case based on its peculiar facts, noting it was not universally applicable to all child custody matters.
• Tejaswini Gaud and others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others [(2019) 7 SCC 42]: This case permitted the invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking child custody when the natural guardian sought custody from those without a legal right. The Supreme Court relied on this to justify the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition.
• The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: This Act provides the legal procedures for appointing guardians and making decisions regarding the welfare of minors.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers High Courts to issue writs, including habeas corpus, to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and another [(2024) 10 SCC 588]: The court followed this precedent to emphasize the importance of the child being with the natural guardian after the mother’s death.
• Nirmala Vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. [2024 INSC 370]: The court distinguished this case based on its specific facts, noting it was not universally applicable to all child custody matters.
• Tejaswini Gaud and others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others [(2019) 7 SCC 42]: The court relied on this to justify the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant custody to the father was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized the importance of the father being the natural guardian and well-employed, with no allegations of abuse or matrimonial disputes. The welfare of the child was deemed best served with the father. The court also considered the financial provisions made for the child and distinguished the relevance of detailed inquiries under the Guardian and Wards Act.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Custody of the Child

The court’s reasoning was based on the father’s rights as the natural guardian, his capacity to provide for the child, and the overall welfare of the child. The court also considered the financial provisions made for the child and distinguished the relevance of detailed inquiries under the Guardian and Wards Act.

“We are of the opinion that the welfare of the child, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be best served if custody is given to the father.”

“The father, the natural guardian, we reiterate, is well employed and educated and there is nothing standing against his legal rights; as a natural guardian, and legitimate desire to have the custody of his child.”

“It has to be specifically noticed that in Tejaswini Gaud and others, this court had permitted the invocation of the extraordinary remedy seeking custody of the child under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the custody was sought by the father, the natural guardian of the minor child…”

Key Takeaways

• The natural guardian, typically the father or mother, has a strong claim to the custody of a child, especially after the death of the other parent.
• The welfare of the child is paramount in custody decisions, but the rights and capabilities of the natural guardian are also significant factors.
• Remarriage of a parent does not automatically disqualify them from gaining custody of their child.
• Habeas Corpus petitions can be maintainable in child custody cases to protect the child’s welfare, especially when the natural guardian seeks custody.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The child to be retained in the custody of the grandfather until 30.04.2025 to complete the academic year.
• The father to take the child on alternate weekends until 30.04.2025.
• Custody of the child to be handed over to the father on 01.05.2025 in the presence of the jurisdictional Station House Officer.
• The grand-parents to have visitation rights every weekend in which the second Saturday falls, starting from June 2025, for one year.
• The Guardian O.P. filed before the jurisdictional Family Court shall stand closed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the natural guardian has a strong claim to the custody of a child, and the welfare of the child is paramount in custody decisions. The court also clarified that Habeas Corpus petitions are maintainable in child custody cases to protect the child’s welfare.

Conclusion

In the case of Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court granted custody of the minor child to the father, emphasizing the importance of natural guardianship and the welfare of the child. The court’s decision provides clarity on the rights of natural guardians and the maintainability of Habeas Corpus petitions in child custody disputes.

Category

Parent Category: Family Law
Child Categories: Child Custody, Habeas Corpus, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, Article 226, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories: Article 226, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
Child Categories: Guardian and Wards Act, 1890

FAQ

1. Who has the primary right to child custody after the death of one parent?
   The natural guardian, typically the surviving parent, has a strong claim to the custody of the child.
2. Does remarriage affect a parent’s ability to gain custody of their child?
   No, remarriage does not automatically disqualify a parent from gaining custody. The court will consider all factors, including the welfare of the child.
3. Can a Habeas Corpus petition be used to seek child custody?
   Yes, a Habeas Corpus petition can be maintainable in child custody cases to protect the child’s welfare, especially when the natural guardian seeks custody.
4. What is the most important factor in child custody decisions?
   The welfare of the child is the most important factor in custody decisions.