A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case deals with the custody of a minor child, one of the twin daughters born to Respondent No. 2, who had been residing with the Appellants since infancy. The Court resolved the issue of custody using the doctrine of parens patriae, emphasizing the paramount importance of the welfare and stability of the child. Overruling the High Court’s directive to transfer custody to Respondent No. 2, the Supreme Court upheld the child’s preference and found that her welfare was best served by remaining with the Appellants. The judgment establishes that child welfare takes precedence over statutory or parental rights, especially when the child expresses a mature, well-considered preference.

Keywords: Custody of minor child, Parens patriae jurisdiction, Child welfare, Stability and security, Wish of the child.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Shazia Aman Khan and Another v. The State of Orissa and Others

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date: March 4, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal

vi) Author: Justice Rajesh Bindal

vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 10; 2024 INSC 163

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890; Sections 363, 346, 120-B of IPC; Principles of parens patriae.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: The High Court of Orissa’s judgment directing custody transfer was overruled.

x) Law Subjects: Child custody law, Family law, Guardianship law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute arose over the custody of one twin daughter, who had been living with Appellant No. 2, her paternal aunt, since infancy. The biological father, Respondent No. 2, initiated proceedings to reclaim custody years later. The High Court directed the child’s return to Respondent No. 2, but the Appellants challenged the order in the Supreme Court. The case’s uniqueness lies in the intersection of child welfare, custody rights, and the application of parens patriae jurisdiction.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Twin daughters were born to Respondent No. 2 and his wife in 2010. Due to financial difficulties, one child was left with the maternal grandmother in Ranchi and subsequently handed to Appellant No. 2.

2. Since infancy, the child had been under the care of Appellant No. 2. No claims for custody were made by Respondent No. 2 until 2015, when a kidnapping complaint was lodged but later dismissed.

3. Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed a private complaint in 2017 and a writ petition in 2021 seeking custody, claiming wrongful confinement.

4. The High Court ordered the transfer of custody to Respondent No. 2, despite the child being settled with the Appellants for over a decade. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the welfare of the child overrides the statutory rights of parents in custody disputes.

2. To what extent the child’s preference should be considered in custody matters.

3. How the parens patriae principle is applicable in determining custody.

F) PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS

1. Welfare of the Child: The Appellants argued that the child’s stability and welfare, established through years of upbringing in their family, should take precedence.

2. Preference of the Child: The child, being 14 years old, expressed her wish to remain with the Appellants, which should be respected.

3. Delay by Respondent No. 2: The biological father showed little interest for over a decade, which evidenced his lack of genuine concern.

4. Legal Doctrines: The Appellants relied on precedents like Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu and Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli to argue that the child’s welfare outweighs parental rights.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Parental Rights: Respondent No. 2 emphasized his rights as the biological father under Mohammedan law.

2. Initial Placement: The child was left temporarily with Appellant No. 2 and should have been returned once circumstances improved.

3. Concerns of Discrimination: The Respondent raised concerns about the child’s well-being in a household with the Appellant’s own children.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890: Relevant for deciding custody disputes based on child welfare.

2. Indian Penal Code, Sections 363, 346, 120-B: Addressed in the context of the dismissed kidnapping allegations.

3. Principle of Parens Patriae: Applied to prioritize the child’s welfare over technical legal considerations.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The welfare of the child is paramount, superseding statutory and parental rights.

2. The stability and settled environment provided by the Appellants were crucial factors in determining custody.

3. The child’s mature preference to stay with the Appellants was given significant weight.

b. Obiter Dicta:

The Court noted that custody matters are distinct from guardianship, and parental rights must yield to child welfare.

c. Guidelines:

1. Welfare of the child must always take precedence in custody disputes.

2. The child’s preference should be considered when of sufficient age and maturity.

3. Stability and security are essential for the child’s development.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Tejaswani Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (AIR 2019 SC 2318)

2. Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed and Others ((2010) 2 SCC 654)

3. Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli ((2008) 7 SCC 673)

4. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu ((2008) 9 SCC 413)

5. Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma ((2015) 8 SCC 318)

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890

2. Indian Penal Code, Sections 363, 346, 120-B