Child and Family Welfare – Custody of minor child – Custody of one of the twin daughters born to respondent No.2 and his wife is in question, who had undisputedly been living with appellant No.2 (real sister of respondent No. 2) ever since she was 3-4 month old and thereafter with the family: Held: Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality – Welfare of the children is of paramount consideration and not personal law and statute – Child’s welfare is to be seen and not the rights of the parties – Another principle of law which is settled with reference to custody of the child is the wish of the child, if she is capable of – Presently, the child is about 14 years of age – She was called in Court and interacted with individually in chamber – She is quite intelligent and could understand her welfare – She categorically stated that she was happy with the family where she had been brought up – She has other brother and sister and is having cordial relations with them and she does not wish to be destabilized – The fact that appellant No.1 was un-married when custody of the child was handed over to her and is now married having two children will also not be a deterrent for this Court to come to the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the appellant No.2 as the child is living with her ever since she was 3-4 months old and is now about 14 years of age having no doubt in her mind that she wishes to live with them – Welfare of the child lies with her custody with the appellants and respondent No.10 – This is coupled with the fact that even she also wishes to live there – She cannot be treated as a chattel at the age of 14 years to hand over her custody to the respondent No.2, where she has not lived ever since her birth – Stability of the child is also of paramount consideration – Impugned order passed by the High Court inter alia directing the recovery of the child from the custody of appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 10, particularly from appellant No.1 and respondent No. 10 and to hand over to respondent No.2 is set aside – Writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 in the High Court dismissed. [Paras 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.