The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a Katol farmer seeking custody of his 8-year-old daughter from her maternal relatives. The court ruled that the child's welfare could not be disturbed through extraordinary writ jurisdiction when she had been living with her maternal family since infancy.
Court's Decision and Visitation Rights
A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta granted the father visitation rights twice a month, directing that the meetings be supervised at the office of the Taluka Legal Services Authority in Saunsar, Madhya Pradesh, where the girl resides.
Background of the Case
The petitioner contended that matrimonial discord led his wife to frequently stay at her parent's home, where she died in June 2020. He alleged that his daughter was subsequently "illegally detained" by her maternal uncle, grandparents, and aunt. The maternal relatives argued that the child had lived with them since birth and that her father showed little interest in her upbringing. They further contended that the petition was filed only after an interim maintenance order was passed against him in January 2022 in proceedings initiated on behalf of the minor child.
Observations by the Bench
The judges noted that the father took no legal steps to seek custody for nearly three years after his wife's death, even after remarrying in December 2021. They underscored that habeas corpus jurisdiction in child custody disputes is limited and must be exercised cautiously. "The court cannot treat a child as property and transfer custody casually," the bench said, adding that such disputes must be approached "sensitively on humanitarian grounds."
The judges observed that the girl was barely two years old when her mother died and had since remained with her maternal relatives. There was no material to establish that the custody was "illegal and unauthorised." The bench also stressed that questions surrounding permanent custody and long-term welfare required detailed evidence and should ordinarily be adjudicated by a competent civil court under guardianship laws rather than through summary writ proceedings.
While disposing of the petition, the bench remarked, "It would be in the interests of the minor child that she knows her father and spends some time with him."
