The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a child's paternal grandparents against a Single Judge order directing that the custody of their 8-year-old grandson be handed over to his mother.

The division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra said that the grandparents' better financial resources, by themselves, cannot be a ground for depriving the mother of the child's custody.

The Court thus upheld the Single Judge's order granting custody to the mother, stating that the grandparents could provide financial assistance for the child's good upbringing rather than seek custody on the ground of their superior financial position.

"The mere fact that the appellants may be having better financial resources in comparison to the respondent, the same, in itself, cannot be a ground for depriving the mother of custody of her minor son aged about 8 years", the Court observed.

Case background

The appeal was filed by the child's paternal grandfather and grandmother challenging the Single Judge's order passed on May 27, 2026, in a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother.

Briefly put, the mother (respondent no. 7) had approached the High Court alleging that after her husband's death, her in-laws (appellants) had forcibly detained their minor son.

She stated that she received information on November 28, 2025, that her husband had died by suicide in Ghaziabad. She reached there with her parents and both children the following day. After her husband's cremation, the appellants allegedly detained the minor son.

She subsequently approached the police authorities, but, having received no relief, filed the habeas corpus petition seeking custody of the child.

The Single Judge, after considering the affidavits filed by both sides regarding their income, assets and proposed arrangements for the child's welfare, directed that custody be handed over to the mother.

Now, challenging that order, the grandparents contended in their special appeal that the child's welfare lay with them and not the mother, as she had no sufficient source of income to maintain him.

They pointed out that the mother earned approximately Rs. 20,000 per month by giving tuition to 10 students and argued that the Single Judge had handed over custody merely on the ground that she was the child's mother.

They also questioned the denial of visitation rights to them.

High Court's observations

The High Court noted that the Single Judge had considered significant factors of the case including the criminal cases lodged by the parties, the suicide of the child's father, the detention of the child by the grandparents, the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 as well as the child's academic circumstances.

The Single Judge had also considered the child's tender age, continuity of care with the mother, emotional bonding and daily care, as well as the mother's role in shaping his moral values, discipline and emotional security.

The Division Bench further noted that the couple's younger daughter, aged about 4 years, had always remained with the mother, while it was only the minor son who had been detained by the grandparents since the day of his father's cremation.

The Court also observed that the grandparents had stated that proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act had been instituted before the district court, although no record of those proceedings had been placed before the Bench.

In view of this, the Court refused to interfere with the single judge's order.

Regarding the issue of visitation rights, the Bench observed that the grandparents were free to seek appropriate remedies before the district court and could also institute fresh proceedings in relation to the minor son.

In view of this, finding that the Single Judge had passed a "well structured order" after considering the entire facts and circumstances and the material available on record, the Bench found no good reason to take a different view.

The appeal was, hence, dismissed.