Rights of a natural guardian Vs the welfare of the child: Supreme Court Judgment in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025 INSC 159), dealt with the issue of child custody, particularly focusing on the rights of a natural guardian versus the welfare of the child. The case revolved around a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father seeking custody of his minor child, who had been living with his maternal grandparents following his mother’s demise.

Facts of the Case

1. Background:
   • The minor child had been living with his maternal grandparents after his mother’s passing in 2021.
   • The father, who had remarried, filed a Habeas Corpus petition to seek custody of the child.
   • The Writ Court dismissed the petition, granting visitation rights but refusing full custody to the father.
2. Proceedings in the High Court:
   • The High Court upheld the decision, reasoning that the child was comfortable with his grandparents and the father’s remarriage was a relevant factor.
3. Supreme Court Appeal:
   • The father appealed, citing his natural guardianship rights under Hindu law.
   • He provided evidence of financial stability, including property conveyance and insurance policies in favor of the child.

Legal Issues Raised

1. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus for Child Custody:
   • Whether a Habeas Corpus petition was an appropriate remedy for seeking custody when a separate guardianship case was pending.
2. Natural Guardianship vs. Welfare of the Child:
   • Whether the father, as the natural guardian, had a superior claim over the maternal grandparents.
3. Best Interests of the Child:
   • The impact of the father’s remarriage and the child’s existing living arrangements on custody decisions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Habeas Corpus and Child Custody:
   • The Court reiterated principles from Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42, holding that Habeas Corpus is maintainable when custody by a non-parent is illegal.
   • Distinguished from Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh & Ors. (2024 INSC 370), where a detailed inquiry was necessary.
2. Legal Guardianship:
   • Reaffirmed that under Hindu law, the father is the natural guardian unless proven unfit.
   • Relied on Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi (2024) 10 SCC 588, which emphasized the preference for a natural guardian in custody disputes.
3. Best Interests of the Child:
   • Acknowledged the child’s comfort with grandparents but emphasized the father’s stable and supportive environment.
   • Allowed transitionary custody, permitting the child to remain with grandparents until the academic year’s completion.

Judgment and Directions

1. Custody Transition Plan:
   • The child to remain with grandparents until April 30, 2025, to avoid disruption in schooling.
   • The father to have weekend custody twice a month.
   • Full custody to be transferred to the father on May 1, 2025.
2. Visitation Rights for Grandparents:
   • Post-custody transfer, the grandparents to have weekend visitation every second Saturday for a year.
3. Closure of Guardianship Proceedings:
   • The Guardian O.P. filed by the father was dismissed as unnecessary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court balanced legal guardianship principles with the welfare of the child. It upheld the father’s right to custody while ensuring a smooth transition to minimize emotional distress for the child. The ruling reaffirms the importance of the natural guardian’s role, provided the child’s best interests are safeguarded.

References

1. Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi, (2024) 10 SCC 588
2. Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh & Ors., 2024 INSC 370
3. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42