Jharkhand High Court Grants Interim Custody Of 4-Year-Old To Mother, Notes “Pain And Sacrifice” Associated With IVF Process
Getty Images
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the welfare and best interests of a minor child must be the paramount consideration in custody matters and, while granting interim custody of a four-year-old girl to her mother, took note of the fact that the child was born through IVF and the mother had endured the “pain and sacrifice associated therewith.”
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an appeal against the order passed by the Family Court, Hazaribagh, rejecting the mother's application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking interim custody of her minor daughter.
The appellant and respondent, both Assistant Professors at Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh, married on 16.05.2017. Both had previously been married. The couple subsequently mutually agreed to extend their family and resorted to IVF, following which the appellant gave birth to their daughter on 08.03.2022.
The mother alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental torture and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home. She further alleged that the respondent denied her access to the child and did not allow her to meet her daughter. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the appellant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home after abandoning the child.
The Family Court rejected the mother's application for interim custody and instead granted her visitation rights, observing that the minor child was in need of the love and affection of both parents.
The High Court found that the Family Court had not properly adjudicated the mother's claim for interim custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The Bench observed that under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. It held that in matters relating to custody and guardianship, “the determinative factor is not the legal right of the parties but the welfare and best interest of the child, which must override all other considerations.”
The Court further observed:
“In the instant case, the minor female child is aged about four years and six months. At such tender age, she is in dire need of motherly affection and love, and is not in a position to form an intelligent preference. It is an admitted fact that the child was born through IVF and the petitioner/appellant has endured the pain and sacrifice associated therewith.”
In view of the statutory provisions, particularly the conjoint reading of Sections 6(a) and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 with Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court held that the interim custody of the minor child should be handed over to the mother until disposal of the main guardianship/custody proceedings.
The Court accordingly set aside the Family Court's order and directed that interim custody of the minor girl be handed over to the mother. The father was granted visitation rights and permitted to meet the child on weekends between 10 AM and 5 PM, subject to arrangements ensuring that the child's studies were not hampered.
Case Title: SV v. RR
Case Number: First Appeal No. 335 of 2026
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate; Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Adil Ali, Advocate; Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Vijay Shankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate; Ms. Akriti Aprajita, Advocate.