Father Is Natural Guardian After Mother's Death, Ordinarily Most Suitable For Minor's Welfare: Allahabad HC Allows Habeas Plea
The Allahabad High Court has observed that after the demise of the mother, the father is the natural guardian and ordinarily the most suitable person to look after the welfare of the minor.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain thus allowed a Habeas corpus plea filed by a father, directing the maternal relatives of a 13-month-old child to hand over the child's custody to the petitioner.
It was the petitioner-father's case that his wife (mother of the corpus) died in February last year, and since then, his son (corpus) has been in the custody of her maternal aunt and uncle of the corpus. It was contended that he, being the natural and legal guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor.
It was further submitted that the petitioner is financially sound and fully capable of maintaining the minor and ensuring his proper upbringing. Lastly, he submitted that his sister, who resides in close proximity to his residence, is a housewife and available to assist in caring for the minor.
On the other hand, the maternal aunt and uncle submitted that there are doubts regarding his capability to take care of the minor, as his wife died during a failed IVF procedure, which reflected adversely on his conduct
It was further submitted that the corpus is presently under the care of the maternal aunt, who is adequately equipped to look after the child, particularly considering that the child was born premature and requires special care.
The bench, at the outset, relied upon the Supreme Court's judgments in Tejaswini Gaud vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari 2019 and Gautam Kumar Das vs NCT of Delhi and Ors 2024 to note that granting temporary custody of a minor child to a relative would not preclude the natural guardian from seeking custody of the minor child.
Furthermore, the bench stressed that in habeas corpus proceedings relating to the custody of a minor, the paramount consideration for the Court is the welfare and best interests of the child.
Returning to the facts of the case, the bench firmly stated that the mere fact that the mother of the corpus died during a failed IVF procedure cannot, in any manner, be attributed to any fault on the part of the petitioner-father so as to disentitle him from claiming custody of his minor child.
"It is also undisputed that after the demise of the mother, the father is the natural guardian and ordinarily the most suitable person to look after the welfare of the minor. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is unfit or incapable of discharging his parental responsibilities. On the contrary, the record reflects that the petitioner possesses sufficient financial means, has stable residential arrangements, and is in a position to provide proper care and upbringing to the child," the bench further observed.
The bench also took into account the fact that the corpus is only about 13 months old and if custody is not entrusted to the father at this stage, there is a real possibility of the child growing up without forming any emotional bond with him.
This, the Court said, would be detrimental to the child's overall development and the father's parental rights.
Hence, in the totality of the facts and circumstances and considering the paramount welfare of the minor, the bench found no justification to deny custody of the corpus to his father.
Thus, allowing the plea, the bench directed the private respondents to hand over the custody of the minor corpus to the petitioner in the Court itself. However, to preserve the child's emotional bond with the maternal family, the respondents were granted visitation rights.
Justice Jain further clarified that in the event the private respondents observe any circumstance adverse to the welfare of the minor, it shall be open to them to approach this Court in accordance with law.
Case title - Akshit Pandey (Minor) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 238