The Bombay High Court ruled that custody of a minor cannot be given on the basis of which parent has more time to spend with their children.
Under the section-5 of the Indian Constitution under Article-226 of the habeas corpus, a case had come to light in which a husband demanded custody of his child. In a statement about wife he said that his wife is a very busy actress, she doesnt have much time to spend for their childs sound upbringing.
The couple was married in 2013 and their son was born in 2016. Soon after they both parted ways.
It was stated in reliance that according to Sections under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is first natural guardian of a child. If the minor was below the 5, the custody shall lie on the other side.
A bench of Justices SS Shinda And NJ Jamadar dismissed the husband habeas corpus petition under Article 226 and said that just because the mother is a busy actress doesnt mean that she was not suitable for child custody.
It was noted that at first the Court has to confirm whether the custody of a child was unlawful or illegal in this matter.
As a temporary arrangement, the court decided and allowed the father a half-hour video call with the child each day and physical meeting for two hours during weekends.
Lastly, the Bombay High Court made a Statement that both the parties could file a case regarding the childs custody and the issue of the childs overall development could be decided by those proceedings in the future.
