Remarriage by father no ground to deny child custody: SC

Post By 24law
February 12, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a father's remarriage cannot be a valid ground to deny him custody of his minor child. The verdict was pronounced on February 7, 2025, by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran in a case where a father, an administrative service officer, sought custody of his child after the death of the mother.

Background of the Case

The minor child, currently studying in Class VII, had been living with his maternal grandparents since 2021 following the demise of his mother. The father had approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition seeking custody, which was denied. The High Court, after interacting with the child, held that he was comfortable living with his grandparents and that his welfare would be best served by continuing in their care. The court, however, granted the father visitation rights on the first day of every month at a venue fixed by the jurisdictional Station House Officer. Challenging this order, the father approached the Supreme Court, arguing that he was the natural guardian and that his remarriage should not be held against his right to custody.

Supreme Court's Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of the welfare of the child and ruled that the father’s status as the natural guardian, coupled with his stable professional background, made him eligible for custody. The bench stated: “Though the father has re-married, it cannot stand against the claim for custody; especially since otherwise, there would have been a question raised as to how the child would be taken care of; the father being engaged in his work.”

The court also pointed out that the child had spent nearly ten years with both parents before the mother’s death and had only been separated from the father since 2021. The bench observed: “Admittedly, the child, after his birth, was with his parents for about 10 years till the death of his mother. He was separated from the father in 2021 and has been living with his grand-parents, who cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian.” The Supreme Court further noted that there were no allegations of abuse or matrimonial discord against the father when the mother was alive. The bench held: “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.”

Legal Precedents and Arguments

The appellant relied on the case of Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi & Anr (2024), which underlined the necessity for a minor child to be with the natural guardian, particularly when the mother is deceased. The counsel also pointed out that the father’s second wife had submitted an affidavit undertaking to care for the child as her own.

On the other hand, the maternal grandparents’ counsel referred to Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh & Ors (2024), where the Supreme Court stressed the need for a detailed inquiry into the welfare and preference of the child, which they argued should be conducted under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. They also contended that since the father had already initiated proceedings under this Act, the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable.

The Supreme Court referred to Tejaswini Gaud & Ors v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors (2019), which permitted invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution in custody disputes when a father, as the natural guardian, sought custody from individuals without legal rights over the child. Quoting Nirmala, the bench reaffirmed: “It was also held that there can be no hard and fast rule insofar as the maintainability of a Habeas Corpus petition relating to custody of minor children; which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Final Directions

While ruling in favor of the father, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the child had been living with his grandparents for three years and was nearing the completion of his academic year. To ensure a smooth transition, the court ordered: “We direct the child to be retained in the custody of the grandfather till 30.04.2025. While the child is continuing in the custody of the grand-parents, we permit him to be taken by the father; the appellant-herein, on alternate weekends to reside in his paternal house. The child shall be taken on the evening of Friday or the morning of Saturday and returned on the evening of Sunday. This arrangement shall continue upto 30.04.2025 till the custody of the child is handed over to the father; on 01.05.2025 in the presence of the jurisdictional Station House Officer.”

Additionally, the court granted visitation rights to the maternal grandparents even after custody was handed over to the father, stating:“The grand-parents shall also have visitation rights, post-handing over of custody and they shall be permitted to take the child to their residence on every weekend in which the second Saturday falls, starting from June, 2025; which arrangement shall continue for an year and then, as per the desire of the child.” The court also closed the custody proceedings pending before the jurisdictional Family Court, disposing of the appeal and directing that both parties bear their own costs.