LexGAUTAM KUMAR DAS versus NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 451 : 2024 INSC 610 Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 3447 of 2024) 20 August 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of custody of the minor child to the father, the only natural guardian. Headnotes† Custody – Claim of – Appellant-father, only surviving biological parent seeking custody of the minor daughter from the alleged unlawful custody of his sister-in-laws – Husband lost his wife just ten days after the birth of their daughter and thereafter, his father due to Covid-19 – Due to the loss, the father handed over the custody of his minor daughter to his sister-in-law as an interim arrangement, however, his son who was relatively older was with him – Subsequently, on his remarriage, he sought custody of his minor daughter, but was refused – Father filed petition under the 1890 Act, seeking custody of his minor daughter but the case was withdrawn – Father then filed habeas corpus petition seeking custody – High Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to the parties to approach the family court – Correctness: Held: In matters of the custody of minor children, the paramount welfare of the child is seen – There cannot be any straight- jacket formula – Also, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition in the custody matters of minor child – Exercise of jurisdiction by the writ court u/Art. 226 or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case – Merely because of the unfortunate circumstances, sister-in-laws were given the temporary custody of the minor child to nurture the infant and only because they looked after her for few years, the same cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the minor child to the appellant-her only natural guardian – Subsequently, the appellant remarried – Now, * Author 452 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports he and his wife can very well look after the minor girl – Perusal of the photographs reveal that the minor child has gelled well with the family – Appellant is well educated and employed as Government Official in Delhi, having residence in Delhi whereas the sister-in-law to whom the custody of the child was handed over is residing at a remote village – Appellant apart from taking care of his children, can very well provide the best of the education facilities to his children – Child, who lost her mother at tender age, cannot be deprived of the company of her father and natural brother – Even in order to ensure the welfare of the minor child, she should live with her natural family – Minor child would get adapted to her natural family very well in a short period – Thus, impugned judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Sister-in-laws to handover the custody of the minor child, however, permitted to meet her at the residence of the appellant at the given time – Constitution of India – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. [Paras 11-17] Case Law Cited Tejaswini Gaud and Others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others [2019] 7 SCR 335 : (2019) 7 SCC 42 – relied on. Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor v. Shri Varinder Kumar Kapoor (1981) 3 SCC 92; Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh and Others (2024) SCC OnLine 758; Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed and Others [2010] 1 SCR 49 : (2010) 2 SCC 654 – referred to. List of Acts Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Grant of custody of the minor child to the father-only natural guardian; Custody; Unlawful custody; Covid-19; Maintainability of the habeas corpus petition in the matters of custody; Welfare of the minor child; Natural guardian; Visitation rights. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3447 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2024 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No.416 of 2024 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 453 Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi and Others Appearances for Parties Saurav Agrawal, Ashish Kumar Tiwari, Anurag Tiwari, Ajay Sharma, Sahib Patel, Advs. for the Appellant. Hirein Sharma, Sudhir Mendiratta, Saurabh Goel, Aditya Saluja, Ms. Vanshika C, Ms. Disha Bhalla, Dhruv Rajpal, Ms. Harshita Sabharwal, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Srija Choudhury, Anant, Ms. Sajal Bhardwaj, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Nachiketa Joshi, Siddharth Sinha, Santosh Kumar, Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.