The Supreme Court ruled that the father’s remarriage can’t stand against the claim for custody and grandparents cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian.

The appellant, father of a minor child, assailed the order of the Writ Court in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition which denied the custody of the child who was with his grand-parents after his mother passed away.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.Vinod Chandran asserted, “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.”

AOR Nishant Verma represented the Appellant while AOR Arup Banerjee represented the Respondents.

Past Proceedings

The Single Judge who disposed of the Writ Petition interacted with the child who submitted that he is comfortably residing and pursuing his education at his maternal grandfather’s house. It was also noticed that the father had re-married. On the basis of the above findings, it was opined that the welfare of the minor child would be served by letting him continue with his grandfather. The father was granted visitation rights to meet the child regularly on the first day of every month at the venue fixed by the jurisdictional Station House Officer.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the the father was seeking custody of the child from the grandparents who were also looking after the child with the help of the siblings of the mother. The grandfather also initiated a proceeding for maintenance, claiming Rs.20,000 per month for the child. This clarified the position that the grandparents were unable to look after the child by themselves.

“The father is an educated person and holding a responsible position having been appointed to the administrative services of the State. 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 Bench said.

Observing the fact that the Single Judge had not endeavoured to elicit the child’s attitude towards his father, the Bench also noted that the child, after his birth, he 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 grandparents, who cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian. There is no allegation of any matrimonial dispute when the mother of the child was alive nor a complaint of abuse perpetrated against the wife or son”, the Bench said.

“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”, it added.

Considering the fact that the child did not have the company of the father for more than three years, the child is now with the grandparents and his academic year is coming to an end, the Bench directed the child to be retained in the custody of the grandfather till April 30, 2025.

Permitting the appellant to take his child on alternate weekends to reside in his house, the Bench ordered, “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. 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.”

Cause Title: Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 159)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Nishant Verma, Advocates Gopal Jha, Amitabh Ranjan, Samiksha Sharma, Jitendra Kumar Singh

Respondents: AOR Arup Banerjee, Advocates Amitabh Poddar, Priyanshu Raj, Prakash Sharma, Rajiv Agnihotri, Anjali Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Deveshi Chand, Srujana Suman Mund, AOR Saroj Tripathi

Click here to read/download Judgment:


Supreme CourtJustice BR GavaiJustice K. Vinod ChandranChild CustodyHabeas Corpus

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.