The Allahabad High Court has held that a father, being the natural guardian of his minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot be denied her custody unless he is shown to be unfit to be her guardian.

The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held,

“In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father has a paramount right to the custody of the children, he cannot be deprived of the custody of the minor child unless it is shown that he is unfit to be her guardian.”

It held that in weighing the welfare of the minor, a court must look to her future prospects and not merely to the time she has already spent in her present surroundings.

The appellant, an advocate at Prayagraj, married in 2019, and a daughter was born in 2022. In 2023, his wife's brothers took her and the child to her parental home, and she died in 2024 at SGPGIMS, Lucknow. His attempts to get the child back having failed, the appellant sued his father-in-law and three brothers-in-law for custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

The respondents pleaded that his wife had been harassed and physically abused for dowry, that a head injury sustained in the course of it caused the illness that killed her. It was submitted that the child had lived with her maternal grandfather since she was a few months old, and the appellant was likely to remarry.

The trial court dismissed the suit but allowed the appellant and his parents to meet the child every Monday between 10 am and 5 pm. In first appeal before the High Court, he submitted that the decree was unreasoned and non-speaking and rested entirely on the Supreme Court's decision in Somprabha Rana and others v. State of MP and others, decided on very different facts.

Comparing the two households, the Court noted that the appellant, his father, brother and sister-in-law are practising advocates, his parents hold about Rs. 15 lakhs in fixed deposits and that he has put about Rs. 9.58 lakhs into a policy in the child's name. Respondent no. 1, aged about 62, retired from a Class IV post in the UP Public Works Department in 2024, draws no pension and depends on his sons, each with a family of their own, observed the Court. It also noted the admission that the child stays by turns with the grandfather and with a maternal aunt who has five children, so that the respondents are not caring for her alone.

Noting that the appellant, aged about 35, has no dependant besides the minor, and that it was unclear who would take charge of her as respondent no. 1 aged, the Court held,

“though we are cognizant of the fact that the minor daughter would face difficulties in adjusting with the appellant and his family, but at the same time, we also are mindful of the fact that the future prospects of the minor daughter do not seem to be very secure and stable if she is allowed to stay with the respondents. Better future prospects of the minor cannot be jeopardized at the cost of difficulties she is going to face on account of the changed circumstances, if her custody is given to the appellant.”

It held that the child, being only about four, was not old enough to form an intelligent preference.

On dowry, the Court found little beyond assertion and denial, and noted the appellant's admission that the respondents had voluntarily given Rs. 2 lakhs towards the car, the balance and the instalments being paid by him. No police complaint was made in the four and a half years the couple lived together, as respondent no. 1 admitted, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, dismissing an application under Section 175(3) BNSS, found no case of dowry harassment and recorded death by tuberculosis meningitis.

The Court observed that the medical records showed deceased-wife had Tubercular Meningitis Stage III with Hydrocephalus, death being caused by Brain Stem Herniation and Shock.

“…it is difficult to understand as to how an alleged head injury could have led to tuberculous meningitis, moreso when the records reveal that Shivani Yadav was keeping unwell for the past about one year and her earliest medical prescriptions in respect of her illness pertain to March 2023.”

The Court observed that the trial court judgment was largely a reproduction of the pleadings and the evidence of six witnesses, gave no reasons on issue nos. 2 and 3, and decided issue no. 1 solely by reference to Section 6, offending Order XX Rule 5 CPC, which requires a civil court to state its finding on each issue with reasons. In Somprabha Rana, the Court noted, the mother had died by hanging and the father had been arrested and charge-sheeted.

“…the Courts should not place reliance on decision without disclosing as to how factual situation fits in with the facts and circumstances on which reliance is placed. The observation of Court should neither be read as Elucids theorem nor as the provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the decree and directed the respondents to hand over custody of the minor to the appellant within one month.

Mindful that she had lived with respondets for about two years and nine months, it gave them visitation between 2 pm and 5 pm at the District Legal Services Authority, Prayagraj, with liberty to seek a change of venue from the trial court.

Case Title: A v. K

Click Here To Read/Download Order