Supreme Court Says Children Aren’t Movable Property: A Decision That Puts Their Welfare First
The Supreme Court of India has made a noteworthy ruling regarding the custody of minors, emphasizing that children should never be treated as movable property when decisions about their custody are made. This significant decision was announced on Friday, addressing the delicate nature of custody battles, especially in cases involving habeas corpus petitions.
A bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih said such issues cannot be decided mechanically (File)
Supreme Court’s Stand on Child Custody
A habeas corpus petition is usually filed to produce before the court a person who has gone missing or has been illegally detained. When it involves minors, the complexities become even more critical. The Court stressed that these issues can’t be resolved mechanically and must be handled with humanitarian considerations.
A Case of Unnatural Circumstances
The ruling was part of a case revolving around the custody of a young girl, just two years and seven months old. Tragically, the child lost her mother in December 2022, and since then, she had been in the care of her maternal aunts. A legal battle ensued when the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in June 2023, ordered that the child be handed over to her father and paternal grandparents. The child’s aunts moved the Supreme Court, challenging this order.
The Impact of Custody Changes on the Child
The Supreme Court noted that the child was initially placed with her maternal aunts when she was just 11 months old. The Court expressed concern that the High Court didn’t fully consider the welfare of the child, focusing instead on the father’s rights as a natural guardian. The main point of contention was that the child’s welfare should override any rights of the parties involved.
Welfare of the Child Comes First
The Supreme Court emphasized that in matters of custody, the child’s welfare must be the paramount consideration. The rights of parents or guardians should not eclipse the well-being of the child. The Court found it inappropriate to disturb the current custody arrangement through a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which governs the writ of habeas corpus.
Suitable Court for Custody Decisions
Only a court with jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards (GW) Act of 1890 is appropriate to address issues related to child custody and guardianship. Such courts, typically civil or family courts, are better equipped to interact with the child frequently and understanding their needs.
Decisions Made with Child’s Welfare in Mind
Given the young age of the child and her lack of familiarity with her father and grandparents, the Supreme Court found it impractical to shift her custody immediately. They noted that at two years and seven months, sudden changes could make her very unhappy since she hasn’t seen her father or grandparents for over a year.
Gradual Introduction to Father and Grandparents
Deciding that a gradual approach was in the child’s best interest, the Supreme Court ruled that the father and grandparents should be allowed to meet the child once every fortnight. The Court instructed that these meetings take place under the supervision of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) at Panna, Madhya Pradesh.
Specific Guidelines for Visits
Starting from September 21, the child is to be brought to the DLSA office on the first, third, and fifth Saturdays of each month at 3 pm. She will spend time with her father and grandparents until 5 pm, under the supervision of the DLSA secretary.
Next Steps for Permanent Custody
The appellants, who are the child’s maternal aunts, were directed to file a petition for the declaration of guardianship and permanent custody within two months under the GW Act. This will allow a competent court to make a more informed decision regarding the child’s long-term guardianship.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s directive underscores that when it comes to minors, their well-being and stability are of the utmost importance, superseding other legal entitlements. This ruling serves as a reminder to all courts to consider the humanitarian aspects and potential impacts on a child’s life when making custody decisions.
