The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that the custody of a minor girl should be granted to her mother, despite the father being a natural guardian. The court highlighted that girls aged 10-15 undergo significant biological changes that require maternal care.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal stated that the child’s welfare is the primary consideration. They noted that during puberty, a girl needs special care and attention from her mother, which a father might not be able to provide adequately.
“It is essential to consider the biological changes a girl undergoes between the ages of 10 to 15, which necessitates special care from the mother,” the court observed.
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife married in 2009 and had a daughter a year later. However, marital issues led to their divorce. The wife filed a petition for maintenance, while the husband sought custody of their daughter. He claimed that his wife made false allegations against him, damaging his reputation, and argued that as the natural guardian, he should have custody.
The wife denied these allegations, accusing the husband of taking her jewelry and demanding dowry. She stated that he abandoned her in 2012 without reason and had not maintained contact with their daughter. She argued that she was providing proper care and education for their daughter and opposed the husband’s custody request.
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s application, prompting him to appeal to the High Court.
In reviewing the case, the High Court considered the Guardians and Wards Act and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The Division Bench noted that child welfare is the paramount concern in custody matters. Referring to the Supreme Court’s stance in the Goverdhan Lal & Ors v. Gajendra Kumar case, the court emphasized the importance of the child’s comfort, health, education, intellectual development, and favorable surroundings.
The court concluded that the father’s status as the natural guardian did not outweigh the need to prioritize the child’s welfare. Evidence showed that the father lacked sufficient income to support his daughter and had no one to care for her while he worked. Additionally, there was no substantial proof of the wife’s alleged criminal tendencies.
Ultimately, the Bench determined that a 12-year-old girl requires her mother’s attention due to the biological changes occurring at this age, which a father might not manage adequately. Therefore, the court granted custody to the mother, reaffirming the principle that the child’s welfare is of utmost importance.
