In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that the welfare and comfort of a child take precedence over personal laws in custody disputes. The case involved a Muslim mother challenging a family court order that granted custody of her 9-year-old son to the father under Islamic law.
Justice Shailesh Brahme, after interacting with the child, observed that his emotional bond with his mother outweighed the legal provisions favoring the father. The judgment emphasized that while personal laws provide guidelines, the child’s best interests remain paramount.
"When the personal law is pitted against the comfort and welfare of the child, the latter would always have the upper hand."
Read also:- Kerala High Court to Decide: Does Hindu Wife Have Claim Over Husband’s Property for Maintenance?
Background of the Case
The appellant (mother) and respondent (father) were married in 2010 and separated in 2020. The mother had been living with their son at her parents’ home in Bidar, while the father resided in Latur. In 2021, the father filed for custody under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, claiming that the mother was unfit due to alleged financial instability and improper care.
The family court granted custody to the father in December 2023, citing Islamic law, which typically transfers custody (hizanat) from the mother to the father after the child turns seven. The mother appealed, arguing that the child’s welfare was not adequately considered.
Read also:- MP High Court Upholds Minor Girl’s Choice to Continue Pregnancy, Bars Stay with Accused Partner
Key Legal Considerations
1. Muslim Personal Law vs. Welfare Principle:
The court referred to Dr. Tahir Mahmood’s commentary on Muslim law, which distinguishes between:
- Hizanat (Custody): Physical care and upbringing, primarily with the mother until a certain age (7 years under Hanafi law).
- Wilayat-e-Nafs (Guardianship): Broader parental authority, vested primarily in the father.
While Islamic law mandates custody transfer to the father after seven, the court noted that statutory law (Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act) requires the child’s welfare to be the foremost consideration.
Read also:- Magistrate Can Directly Entertain Criminal Complaint Without Prior Police FIR: J&K High Court Clarifies
2. Child’s Preference and Emotional Well-being
Justice Brahme interacted with the child, who expressed strong reluctance to live with his father. The court observed:
"The minor is extremely attached to the appellant. He is of 9 years old and for a few more years, he needs his mother’s protection and care physically."
The judgment cited Supreme Court rulings (Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, Neethu v. Rajesh Kumar) stressing that emotional stability, education, and a nurturing environment are critical in custody decisions.
3. Financial and Practical Considerations
The father failed to prove better financial stability, while the mother demonstrated her ability to provide for the child. The court also noted the absence of female family members in the father’s household, which could affect the child’s upbringing.
The High Court set aside the family court’s order and allowed the mother to retain custody, with visitation rights for the father:
- During long vacations: The child can stay with the father for seven days.
- Monthly visits: The father can meet the child once a month, preferably on Sundays or festivals, under supervision at the Bidar District Court.
Case Title: KSIQ vs IAQ (First Appeal 348 of 2024)
Appearances
- For the Mother: Advocate Mahesh Kale
- For the Father: Advocate Madhaveshwari Mhase (Lex Aquila)