top of page
Judge Gavel
Search
Writer's pictureLegal Soch Foundation
2 min read

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment, Emphasizes Child’s Welfare Over Legal Custody Rights

On August 28, 2024, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in a contentious custody dispute, stressing that a child's welfare should take precedence over the legal rights of natural parents. The case arose from an appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which granted custody of a 2.5-year-old child to her father on the grounds that he is the natural guardian. The child has been living with her maternal aunt since her father's arrest in connection with the alleged dowry death of her mother.


A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed strong disapproval of the High Court's approach, which they deemed "completely erroneous." Justice Oka emphasized that the High Court had treated the child as a "transferable, movable property," simply because the father is the natural guardian. He argued that this rationale was insufficient and failed to consider the child's best interests.


“Our judicial conscience is shocked by the fact that High Court treated the child as a transferable, movable property,” remarked Justice Oka, further criticizing the High Court's reliance on a "simple formula" that automatically favored the father based solely on his status as the natural guardian.


The Supreme Court bench underscored that in custody disputes, the child's welfare is paramount, and a custody court could, in certain cases, deny custody to natural parents if it serves the child's best interests. Justice Oka noted that it is not an absolute rule that custody should be granted based on the legal rights of the parties involved.


During the hearing, the bench suggested an interim arrangement where the father could meet his daughter once every fortnight at the office of the Legal Services Authority, supervised by a child psychologist. This arrangement would allow the child to gradually develop a relationship with her father and paternal grandparents. However, the father's counsel resisted this proposal, citing the existing High Court order in his favor.


Ultimately, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment, signaling a nuanced approach that places the child's welfare above legal entitlements.


Case No.:

Crl.A. No. 3821/2023






Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page