The Jharkhand High Court has set aside an order of the Family Court, Hazaribagh, which had rejected a mother's request for interim custody of her minor daughter. The High Court held that the Family Court failed to properly decide the specific application for interim custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad directed that interim custody of the minor girl be handed over to the mother until the main guardianship and custody proceedings are decided.
The dispute concerns the interim custody of a minor girl born in March 2022. The parents are both working as Assistant Professors at Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. The mother approached the Family Court seeking custody of the child and alleged that she had been denied proper access to her daughter.
The father disputed the allegations and maintained that the child was being properly cared for while living with him and his parents. He also opposed the mother's claim for interim custody.
The Family Court, Hazaribagh, rejected the mother's request for interim custody on November 27, 2025, while making an arrangement for visitation rights. The mother challenged that order before the High Court.
The High Court examined the Family Court record and found that the mother's specific prayer for interim custody had not been properly adjudicated.
The Bench noted that the child was about three years and nine months old when the Family Court passed its order. Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act gives the court power to make an order concerning temporary custody of a minor. However, instead of deciding that request, the Family Court had focused on visitation rights.
The High Court reiterated that custody disputes cannot be decided merely by examining the competing rights of the parents. The welfare and overall well-being of the child remain the primary consideration.
"The governing consideration in matters of custody of minor child is the welfare of the child, and not the competing rights of the parties."
The Court further observed that the Family Court was required to decide the interim-custody application on the basis of the pleadings and the applicable law. Its failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.
The High Court held that the Family Court's order suffered from perversity and could not be sustained. It therefore quashed and set aside the November 27, 2025 order.
The Court directed that interim custody of the minor girl be handed over to the mother until disposal of the main guardianship and custody proceedings.
The father was granted visitation rights on weekends between 10 AM and 5 PM, at a mutually agreed place or at a place directed by the Family Court. The Court directed that the arrangement should not interfere with the child's studies.
