Patna High Court Upholds Maternal Grandparents’ Custody, Rejects Father’s Claim Over Minor Daughter [Read Judgment]

Patna: The Patna High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking the transfer of custody of a minor girl from her maternal grandparents to her father, emphasizing that the child’s welfare must remain the paramount consideration in custody disputes.

Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered their judgment on April 7, 2025, maintaining that disrupting the established emotional bonds between the child and her grandparents would not serve her best interests.

The court addressed a Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a Family Court judgment that had rejected the father’s application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The court noted, “The only question which this Court has to decide is whether the judgment/order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the learned Family Court requires any interference by this Court in this appeal, having regard to the overall welfare and best interests of the minor child.”

Addressing the specific circumstances of the case, the court observed, “The minor daughter of the appellant is now about 10 years old and has been living with her maternal grandparents/respondents since July 2016, prior to the death of her mother. The appellant has since solemnized a second marriage, and they are blessed with a son.”

The court highlighted the importance of emotional security for the child, stating, “The sense of security which the child needs, the warmth and affection she can receive today, would undoubtedly be greater in the company of her maternal grandparents than that of the appellant-father.”

In a significant ruling on parental rights versus child welfare, the court stated, “No doubt, the appellant is the natural guardian of the minor daughter; however, the present circumstances necessitate that the minor girl remain in the custody of her maternal grandparents until she attains majority or opts to live with her father thereafter.”

The court emphasized that custody disputes cannot be decided mechanically, citing a Supreme Court precedent: “The Court cannot treat the child as a movable property and transfer custody without even considering the impact of the disturbance of custody on the child.”

The court upheld the Family Court’s directions regarding financial support, ordering the father to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs for the child’s future education and marriage expenses, in addition to monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000 with annual increments of Rs. 500 until she attains majority.

However, the court also clarified that the father would retain visitation rights. It further emphasized that he was not found unfit to be the legal guardian of his daughter but concluded that, at this stage, transferring custody would not serve the child’s welfare.

Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate, appeared for the appellant, while Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate, represented the respondents.
 

[Read Judgment]