Madras HC Appoints Hindu Couple as Guardians of Muslim Child, Sets Aside Family Court Order [Read Judgment]

Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has appointed a Hindu couple as the legal guardians of a minor Muslim girl, setting aside a contrary order passed by the Family Court, Madurai.

A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is religion-neutral and permits any person desirous of being appointed as a guardian to approach the court, with the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration.

The appellate court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant, S. Balaji, overturning the Family Court’s order dated 29.09.2025 passed in GWOP No. 154 of 2025, which had rejected his petition seeking appointment as the legal guardian of the minor child.

The appellant had filed the guardian original petition under Sections 4(2), 7, 8, 10, and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. According to the appellant, he and his wife, Gurulakshmi, were married in 2012 but remained childless and had decided to adopt. The respondent, a daily labourer known to the couple for over a decade, had three children. Upon the birth of her third child on 14.12.2023, and in light of her financial inability to provide basic amenities to all three children, the respondent voluntarily gave the child in adoption to the appellant and his wife. The child was thereafter raised exclusively by them. The respondent’s circumstances further worsened following the death of her husband.

The Family Court, while acknowledging that a non-Muslim can be appointed as the guardian of a Muslim child even when the child is not within the prohibited degree of relationship, dismissed the petition on the ground that the child was female and that the appellant and his wife were strangers to her. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the appellant, his wife, the respondent, and two of her children were present before the court. The respondent reiterated her consent and stated that the child had been cared for by the appellant and his wife since birth. The court noted that the child addressed the appellant as her father and his wife as her mother, and referred to her biological mother as “aunty.” The respondent’s other children also confirmed that the minor had always been brought up by the appellant and his wife.

On the legal position, the court referred to Section 8(a) of the Act, which allows any person desirous of being appointed as the guardian of a minor to make such an application. On the factors governing appointment, the court referred to Section 17, which requires consideration of the welfare of the child as the primary factor, along with the age, sex, and religion of the minor and the character and capacity of the proposed guardian. The court observed that Section 17(1) requires balancing the emotional attachment of the parties with the welfare of the child, the latter being of paramount importance.

The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Court dealt with adoption under Muslim law and laid down guidelines enabling adoption irrespective of religion, caste, or creed. It noted that while Islamic law does not equate an adopted child with a biological child, it recognises the concept of “Kafala,” under which a child is placed under a Kafil who is legally permitted to ensure the child’s well-being and financial support, even though the child remains the biological descendant of their natural parents.

The court also relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Manual Theodore D’Souza, 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 690, which held that a person who has taken a child into guardianship may seek appointment as guardian under the Act in the absence of specific adoption legislation.

The Bench held that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, applies to all persons irrespective of religion, with religion being only one of the factors under Section 17. It further noted that it was exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction in the best interest of the child.

Satisfied with the credentials of the appellant and his wife, and noting the unequivocal consent of the biological mother, the court concluded that appointing the appellant as the legal guardian would serve the welfare of the child, especially since the child had been raised by them since birth and recognised them as her parents. The court accordingly allowed the appeal and appointed the appellant as the legal guardian of the minor.

For Appellant: Mr. J. Barathan, Advocate
For Respondent: Mrs. M.A. Mahaboobani (Party-in-Person)

Case Title: S. Balaji v. M.A. Mahaboobani [C.M.A (MD) No. 423 of 2026]

[Read Judgment]