Abdication Of Duty To Interact With Child: Madras High Court Sets Aside Family Court’s Order Based Merely On Child Welfare Committee’s Report
The Madras High Court was considering the Civil Revision Petitions challenging the decreetal order wherein the application filed by the petitioner wife for the custody of her children was rejected.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Madras High Court
While setting aside an order of the Family Court in a guardianship and custody matter, the Madras High Court has held that the Court cannot abdicate its duty to interact with and examine the children and pass orders based on some report received from a Child Welfare Committee.
The High Court was considering the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the decreetal order wherein the application filed by the petitioner wife for directing the respondent/husband to hand over the custody of the minor children to her and to grant her interim custody was rejected.
The Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held, “When the Court deals with a case of custody of a minor, the Court virtually deals with it by getting into the shoes of the parents and such a case cannot be dealt with like dealing a case involving properties. The primary duty of the Court is to call the children and the parents and interact with them and thereafter, rely upon any other reports to corroborate its decision. The Court below has not even followed this fundamental procedure and has rejected the application only based on the report of the Child Welfare Committee. The Court cannot abdicate its duty to examine the children and pass orders based on some report received from a Committee.”
Advocate Santhanamari M represented the Petitioner while Advocate K.S.Karthik Raja represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner and the respondent got married in 2019, and two children were born through the wedlock during the years 2020 and 2023. There was a matrimonial dispute between the parties, and the children continued to be in the custody of the respondent/husband. One Guardian Original Petition was filed by the petitioner/wife, seeking a declaration that the petitioner was the permanent guardian of the children and to grant permanent custody of the minor children to the petitioner. Pending this, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application for a direction to the respondent/husband to immediately hand over the custody of the minor children to the petitioner and grant interim custody pending disposal of the Original Petition.
The Court below dismissed both the applications on the ground that handing over custody of the minor children to the petitioner would go against the welfare of the minor children. The Civil Revision Petitions were thus filed before the High Court against this order.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, observed, “In the considered view of this Court, to determine the welfare of the minor children, which is the paramount consideration in cases of this nature, the Court is vested with the duty to call the children and interact with them to ascertain their minds.”
On a perusal of the order, the Bench noted that no such steps were taken by the Court below and the Court below had blindly relied upon the report of the Child Welfare Committee and applied certain judgments and dismissed the applications. “This procedure adopted by the Court below is patently illegal”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the Court ought to have called the children and spoken with them before taking a decision. Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench remanded the matter back to the file of the Family Court, Puducherry and asked the Family Court Judge to call the children and speak with them as well as interact with the parents and take a decision in accordance with law.
Cause Title: AB v. CD (Case No.: CRP No. 6567 of 2026)