The Allahabad High Court has granted custody of a six-year-old boy to his biological mother, setting aside a Family Court order that had refused her request. The Court held that the child’s welfare, rather than the competing claims of family members, must remain the primary consideration in deciding custody.
A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Siddharth Nandan allowed the appeal on October 12, 2026, while granting the paternal grandmother visitation rights to maintain her relationship with the child.
Background
The dispute arose after the child’s father died in September 2020, when the boy was around eight months old. The child subsequently remained in the custody of his paternal grandmother, while the mother claimed that she was prevented from meeting him.
The mother approached the Family Court seeking custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The grandmother opposed the plea, contending that the child had been living with her for years, was settled in that environment and wished to remain with her. She also relied on an alleged compromise and a will said to favour her guardianship.
The Family Court rejected the mother’s custody claim on July 21, 2026, prompting her to file an appeal before the High Court.
The High Court emphasised that the welfare of a minor child takes precedence over the claims of relatives. It noted that the mother had initiated legal proceedings without delay and that the child had been deprived of access to her for several years.
The Bench also questioned the significance of the six-year-old child’s stated preference to remain with his grandmother, observing that his limited opportunity to know his mother had to be considered before relying on that preference.
The Court observed:
“Welfare of the child shall include various factors like ethical upbringing, economic well-being of the guardian, child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education etc. and in determining the welfare of the child the Court cannot take a pedantic approach.”
It further held that the grandmother’s care over the preceding years did not, by itself, establish a superior claim to custody. The Bench also found that the parties’ financial circumstances did not justify denying custody to the mother, who had presented material regarding her ability to support the child.
Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court directed that custody be handed over to the mother forthwith. It recognised that the transition might initially be difficult but considered that the child would gradually adjust to living with her.
The Court directed that the grandmother be allowed to spend one full day each week, from 8 AM to 6 PM, with the child at the mother’s residence for six months. For the following six months, she may visit on every second weekend. The grandmother may approach the High Court for modification of visitation rights after one year, if required.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the grandmother’s counterclaim was rejected.
