Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by the biological father seeking custody of his five-year-old son. The Court directed the police to secure the custody of the child from the grandmother and hand him over to the father within two weeks.
The Bench observed:
“Though grandparents may share a deep emotional bond with the child, such attachment does not confer upon them a superior right to custody over that of the biological parents, unless the parents’ custody is shown to be detrimental to the child’s welfare.”
The Court, while acknowledging the grandmother’s care, emphasized that the paramount consideration in custody disputes is the welfare of the child, and that biological parents’ rights cannot be curtailed absent compelling circumstances
Pravin
.
Facts
The petitioner, employed as a municipal worker, is the biological father of twin boys born through surrogacy on 12 November 2019. One child, Lakshya, who suffers from cerebral palsy, has been in the petitioner’s custody, while the other twin, Lavya, has been living with the petitioner’s mother (respondent no. 5) since birth.
At the time of birth, due to health complications, it was agreed that Lavya would remain in the grandmother’s care. After the COVID-19 lockdown eased, disputes arose between the petitioner and his parents over custody and property. The petitioner filed proceedings before the Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, while the grandmother lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging harassment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
As the grandmother refused to return custody, the father filed the present habeas corpus petition seeking immediate handover of his son.
Issues
- Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to decide custody of a minor child when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are already pending.
- Whether grandparents have a superior right to retain custody against biological parents where no marital discord or incapacity is shown.
- Whether emotional attachment and past care by grandparents can override the legal rights of natural guardians.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he is the biological father and natural guardian, and along with his wife, has a rightful claim to custody. He is gainfully employed and has already been caring for one twin child with special needs. There is no marital discord or incapacity that disqualifies him from custody.
It was further contended that separating the twins was against their welfare, and that grandparents, despite emotional bonds, cannot legally supersede parents’ rights. Reliance was placed on Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Tiwari (2019) 7 SCC 42 and Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi (2024 INSC 610), which recognize habeas corpus as maintainable where custody is illegally withheld from natural guardians.
Respondent’s Arguments
The grandmother opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner and his wife had disowned the twins at birth, calling them a burden, and voluntarily entrusted Lavya to her care. Since then, she has nurtured him, and he is emotionally attached to her.
It was further argued that the petitioner is financially and emotionally incapable of raising both children, given one already suffers from cerebral palsy. The grandmother alleged the petition was motivated by property disputes, citing the petitioner’s offer to drop custody claims in exchange for property rights.
She relied on Tejaswini Gaud and Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42 to argue that custody should be decided solely on the child’s welfare, not the legal rights of parents.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that habeas corpus jurisdiction can be invoked in child custody disputes where a minor is unlawfully deprived from his natural guardians, even if statutory proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are pending.
It emphasized that grandparents may provide love and care, but such custody is not superior to that of biological parents unless compelling evidence shows detriment to the child’s welfare. The welfare principle remains paramount, but the threshold for depriving parents of custody is high.
Precedent Analysis
- Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Tiwari (2019) 7 SCC 42 – Held habeas corpus is maintainable to restore custody to a natural guardian unlawfully deprived of it. Applied to affirm maintainability of the petition.
- Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi (2024 INSC 610) – Directed custody to father despite relatives’ care, as no incapacity of father was shown. Relied upon as directly applicable.
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42 – Reaffirmed that welfare of the child is paramount. Distinguished as that case concerned custody between estranged spouses, unlike here.
- Gohar Begum v. Suggi (AIR 1960 SC 93) – Recognized habeas corpus for custody of minors unlawfully detained by relatives. Applied to strengthen petitioner’s case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The petitioner is the biological father and natural guardian, living with his wife, and already caring for the other twin.
- There is no evidence of incapacity or marital discord.
- The grandmother’s age (74) and her own claim for maintenance undermine her argument of superior capability.
- While the child may share emotional bonds with the grandmother, this cannot override the parents’ rights absent proof of detriment.
- The pending Family Court proceedings did not bar writ jurisdiction, as habeas corpus is maintainable in exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, the custody of Lavya was directed to be handed to the petitioner.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the petition and directed the police to secure custody of the child from the grandmother within two weeks. To ensure a smooth transition, visitation rights were granted to the grandmother, permitting weekday meetings at the petitioner’s residence for an initial three-month period. Both parties were directed to cooperate and safeguard the child’s welfare.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that biological parents, as natural guardians, enjoy superior custody rights over grandparents, unless clear evidence shows their custody is detrimental to the child. It clarifies that habeas corpus jurisdiction may be exercised even during pendency of Family Court proceedings, where withholding custody amounts to illegal detention. It balances parents’ legal rights with grandparents’ emotional bonds by granting structured visitation.
FAQs
1. Can habeas corpus be filed for child custody when Family Court cases are pending?
Yes. The Court held habeas corpus is maintainable in exceptional cases where custody is unlawfully withheld from natural guardians.
2. Do grandparents have superior custody rights over biological parents?
No. Emotional bonds cannot override parents’ rights unless parental custody is shown to harm the child’s welfare.
3. How did the Court balance the grandmother’s bond with the child?
By granting visitation rights, while restoring custody to the father as the natural guardian.
