'A' and 'B' were married for 18 years and recently they got divorced. They have "C", a 8 year old child.....Discuss what are the requirements for claiming the custody of child....

Question: 'A' and 'B' were married for 18 years and recently they got divorced. They have "C", a 8 year old child. 'A' claimed custody of 'C' on the ground that he is a rich person and can sponsor the best education of "C". "B' is a school teacher demanding the custody of 'C', saying that she will do her best to give the best care to 'C'.

Discuss what are the requirements for claiming the custody of child. Decide who is entitled to get the custody in above circumstances.

Find the answer to Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. ['A' and 'B' were married for 18 years and recently they got divorced. They have "C", a 8 year old child.....Discuss what are the requirements for claiming the custody of child....]

Answer

The welfare principle for the custody of the child is aimed at serving twin objectives. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 has discussed in detail the twin objectives:-

In the first instance, it is to ensure that the child grows and develops in the best environment. The best interest of the child has been placed at the vanguard of family/custody disputes according to the optimal growth and development of the child and has primacy over other considerations. This right of the child is also based on individual dignity.

The second justification behind the welfare principle is the public interest that stands served with the optimal growth of the children. Child-centric human rights jurisprudence that has evolved over a period of time is founded on the principle that public good demands proper growth of the child, who are the future of the nation.

A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. This was observed in the case of Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413, which has further held that:-

“The court has to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development, and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.”

The welfare of the child shall include various factors like ethical upbringing, the economic well-being of the guardian, child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, etc., [Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held various crucial factors which have to be kept in mind by the courts for gauging the welfare of the children and equally for the parents in the case of Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, (2019) 7 SCC 311. These factors can be, inter alia, delineated, such as

(1) maturity and judgment;
(2) mental stability;
(3) ability to provide access to schools;
(4) moral character;
(5) ability to provide continuing involvement in the community;
(6) financial sufficiency and last but not the least the factors involving relationship with the child, as opposed to characteristics of the parent as an individual.

In light of the principles established in Vivek Singh and Nil Ratan Kundu and applying the same to the present proposition in hand, it is clear that the court should focus on what arrangement serves the best interest of 'C' holistically, including emotional support, ethical upbringing, and a stable environment.

While the financial capability of ‘A’ is a significant factor in reaching a decision, it is equally important that the same should be balanced against 'B'’s ability in providing a nurturing and morally sound environment to ‘C’

Ultimately the decision of the court must ensure that 'C' grows in an environment that fosters both emotional well-being and academic success of ‘C’, aligning with the child-centric approach emphasized in the aforesaid judicial precedents. Therefore, the court must assess both A's financial sufficiency and B's emotional and educational support in order to reach a solution that best promotes C's well-being.