In a significant ruling that prioritizes children's wishes and welfare, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed a father's petition seeking custody of his two minor children from their grandparents and aunts. The court's decision came after both children explicitly stated they did not wish to live with their father and stepmother.
Court Hears Children's Preferences
The case involved a physiotherapist from Surat who had sought custody of his 14-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter through a habeas corpus petition. He alleged that his parents and sisters were illegally detaining the children and preventing him from meeting them. However, when the court called the children to understand their perspective, both confirmed they preferred staying with their grandparents.
The children had lived with their paternal grandparents and aunts in a joint family arrangement since birth, continuing this living situation even after their parents' divorce in 2023 was finalized by mutual agreement. Following his second marriage in 2024, the physiotherapist moved into a new house with his wife while the children remained with his family.
Family Allegations and Failed Mediation
The petitioner's parents presented counter-arguments in court, claiming that his alcoholism and involvement with Aghori practices and tantric rituals had led to the divorce. They maintained that the children consistently refused to live with their father due to these concerns.
The court's attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation proved unsuccessful, as tensions had escalated when the family changed the daughter's school without the father's consent. The petitioner argued that as the biological father, he held the right of natural guardianship over his children under relevant laws.
Legal Reasoning and Final Judgment
The bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda and Justice U T Desai dismissed the physiotherapist's petition as not maintainable, noting that he had himself entrusted the children's custody to his parents initially. The court emphasized that this voluntary arrangement meant the custody couldn't be considered unlawful.
The bench stated clearly: "It is clear from the context of the present case that the father did not wish to be burdened with the upkeep of his two minor children and wanted the two children to be taken care of by his parents and siblings."
The High Court further ruled that since the man willingly left the children with his parents and sisters, he couldn't invoke provisions of Section 251 of the Guardian and Wards Act or Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The court stressed that natural guardianship "does not, in itself, entitle him to custody when the welfare of the minors clearly points in another direction."
In its final order, the court also directed the immediate reversal of the daughter's school transfer, ordering her readmission to her previous educational institution. The judgment reinforces that children's welfare and preferences remain paramount in custody disputes, even when biological parents seek to reclaim custody.
