The Jharkhand High Court has held that where a parent's application contains a substantive prayer for temporary custody and an alternative prayer for visitation rights, the Family Court must first consider and reject the substantive prayer by assigning cogent reasons before proceeding to the alternative relief.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad set aside a Family Court order granting a mother only limited visitation rights and directed that the minor daughter's custody be handed over to her on a temporary basis, subject to the final outcome of the pending guardianship proceedings.

The appeal arose from an order dated November 20, 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi, disposing of the mother's application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Family Court had permitted her to meet the child once every two months for two to three hours at a place to be decided by the husband, besides allowing virtual interaction for half an hour, preferably on weekends.

The parties married in January 2017 and their daughter was born in July 2021. According to the mother, the child remained in her care from birth. She alleged that after leaving the matrimonial home in August 2024 owing to physical and mental cruelty, she began residing with her parents in Saran, Bihar. She further alleged that the husband later took the child on the assurance that she would be returned within two days but failed to restore custody.

The mother initially approached the Family Court at Chapra, but the guardianship case was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. She thereafter instituted proceedings before the Family Court at Ranchi and sought interim custody under Section 12 of the 1890 Act.

The High Court reiterated that although the father is recognised as a natural guardian under the statute, the decisive consideration in custody matters is the child's welfare and not the competing legal rights of the parents. The Court observed:

“The consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of the children and not the rights of the parties.”

It added that custody disputes cannot be decided on a purely legalistic basis. Courts must consider the child's ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development, moral and ethical values and overall well-being. During the hearing, the Bench interacted with both parents for approximately 45 minutes to an hour and also observed the child's conduct in Court. Upon seeing her mother, the child immediately moved from the father's lap to the mother's lap. The Court noted that the child repeatedly moved between both parents and appeared equally comfortable and affectionate towards them.

The mother requested temporary custody for the vacation period, stating that she had been deprived of expressing affection towards her daughter for nearly two years. The Court found the request bona fide and genuine, particularly in view of the child's emotional attachment to her.

The Bench held that Section 12 expressly empowers the Family Court to grant temporary custody. It faulted the lower court for proceeding directly to the mother's alternative prayer for visitation without deciding her principal request for interim custody. The Court held:

“Where an application contains both a substantial prayer and an alternative prayer, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first address and reject the substantial prayer by assigning cogent reasons, and only thereafter proceed to consider the alternative prayer.”

It further observed:

“It will be improper on the part of the Court of law to straightaway go to the alternative prayer skipping away the substantial prayer without assigning any reason as to why the substantial prayer is not being allowed.”

The High Court also found the visitation arrangement unduly harsh. The mother was living nearly 400 to 500 kilometres away, yet was required to travel to meet the child for only two to three hours once in two months, at a place determined by the husband and after giving prior notice.

The Court observed that the Family Court failed to consider the mother's convenience, her emotional relationship with the child and the practical difficulties involved in exercising the visitation rights. It termed the conditions imposed “unreasonable”.

Holding that the Family Court's order suffered from perversity and non-application of mind, the Bench quashed it and allowed the mother's application under Section 12. It directed that the child's custody be handed over to the mother as a temporary measure, subject to the final decision in the guardianship suit.

The Family Court was also directed to decide the pending suit expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Case Title: Smt. Megha Singh v. Sri Ankit Kumar Singh

Case Number: First Appeal (Filing) No. 2181 of 2026

Appearance: Mr. Anurag Kashyap for the Appellant. Mr. Rohit Sinha, Mr. Paritosh Rai, Mr. Vijay Shankar and Mr. Imran Hassan for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order