Supreme Court of India
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULIversusJAYANT GANGULI
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 636
- Decided
- 12 May 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order granting exclusive custody to the father, holding that the child’s welfare and stability are best served by remaining with him.
Summary
Mausami Moitra Ganguli and Jayant Ganguli were married in 1996 and had a son in 1998. The mother left the matrimonial home in 2001 due to alleged domestic violence, leaving the three‑year‑old child with the father. After a divorce decree in 2002, the mother filed a petition under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking custody. The Family Court granted custody to the mother, but the High Court set aside that order and awarded exclusive custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the child, who expressed a desire to remain with his father in Allahabad, and held that the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare and stability. It found no evidence that the father’s custody endangered the child and affirmed the High Court’s order granting custody to the father.
Issues considered
- Whether custody of a minor child after divorce should be awarded to the mother or the father.
- Whether the welfare and stability of the child outweigh statutory presumptions favoring either parent.
- Whether the mother’s petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is maintainable.
- Whether the child’s expressed preference is relevant to the custody determination.
Legislation cited
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890s. 10, s. 17, s. 25
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956s. 13
Subjects
custodychild welfareGuardians and Wards ActHindu Minority and Guardianship Actdivorceparental rightschild preferencestability
Judgment
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 260
_,,.. '
A MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI
V.
JAYANT GANGULI
(Civil Appeal No.3500 Of 2008)
MAY 12, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
+ .
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - ss.10, 17 and 25 -
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - s.13 - Custody
c of male child - Parents divorced - Mother left matrimonial
home leaving the child, 3 year old at that time, with father -
Child now 10 years old - To which parent, the care and control
of the child should be committed - Held: The first and the
paramount consideration is welfare and interest of the child
D and not rights of the parents under a statute - Stability and .... _
security of the child is alsc an essential ingredient for full de-
velopment of child's talent and personality.*
Appellant left her matrimonial home at Allahabad leav-
E ing her three year old son with her husband, Respondent.
Subsequently she filed a suit for divorce against Respon-
dent which was decreed. Since no appeal was filed by
Respondent against the said decree, it attained finality.
Thereafter, Appellant moved a petition under ss.10 and
....
F 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with the
provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956 before the Family Court. The application was allowed
and Appellant was declared as the lawful guardian of the
minor child. Respondent filed appeal before the High
G Court which set aside the order passed by the Family
Court and granted custody of the child to Respondent.
Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H 260
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI v. 261
~ _.._ JAYANT GANGULI
HELD: 1. It is trite that while determining the ques- A
tion as to which parent the care and control of a child
. should be committed, the first and the paramount con-
sideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not
the rights of the parents under a statute. Indubitably the
provisions of law pertaining to the custody of a child con- B
• + tained in either the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (s.17)
or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (s.13)
also hold out the welfare of the child as a predominant
consideration. In fact, no statute, on the subject, can ig-
nore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of
c
the minor. The question of welfare of the minor child has
again to be considered in the background of the relevant
facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided
-* . on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve D
as binding precedents insofar as the factual aspects of
the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is
presumed by the statutes to be better suited to look after
the welfare of the child, being normally the working mem-
ber and head of the family, yet in each case the Court has E
to see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining
the question of his or her custody. Better financial re-
• sources of either of the parents or their love for the child
t may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be
the sole determining factor for the custody of the child. It F
is here that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise
its judicial discretion judiciously in the background of all
the relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the
welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. [Para
_, 14] [269-A-G] G
Rosy Jacob v Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) 1 SCC
840 - referred to.
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition Vol.13 - re-
ferred to.
2.1 In the present case there is nothing on record to
suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril
B in the hands of the father. The stability and security of the
child is also an essential ingredient for a full development -t •
of child's talent and personality. [Para 17) [270-G, 271-A]
2.2 Having interviewed the child in the chambers for
C some time, this Court finds it difficult to accept the stand of
the appellant that the father does not have sufficient time
or resources to look after the welfare of the child. The dis-
location of the child, at this stage, from Allahabad, where
he has grown up in sufficiently good surroundings, would
o not only impede his schooling, it may also cause emotional
strain and depression on him. [Para 17) [271-C,D]
2.3 Significantly, during course of hearing on one of
the dates, when this Court had not yet interviewed the
E child, it was suggested that it would be better if the child
could stay with his mother for some more time. However,
upon hearing this, the child started crying and whining
and, showed reluctance to go with the mother. Watching
his reaction, the proposal was dropped by this Court. +
F Under these circumstances and bearing in mind the para-
mount consideration of the welfare of the child, this Court
is convinced that child's interest and welfare will be best
served if he continues to be in the custody of the father.
[Para 17] [271-D,E,F]
G
2.4 The order of the High Court giving his exclusive
custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother
deserves to be maintained. It will, however, be open to
the parties to move this Court for modification of this or-
H der or for seeking any direction regarding the custody
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI v. 263
' _....
JAYANT GANGULI
and well-being of the child, if there i~ any change in the A
circumstances. [Para 17] [271G, 272-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal NO.
3500 of 2002 .
.+ From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.2.2007 of
B
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No .
. 755 of 2005
AK. Sengupta, Suraj Prakash and Dr. Kailash Chand for
the Appellant. c
K.K. Mohan for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-A·
D.K. JAIN, J.: Leave granted. D
2. Whether the father or the mother should have the cus-
tody of an almost ten year old male child is the short question
which falls for consideration in this appeal.
E
3. The appellant-mother and respondent-father got mar-
ried on 18111 April, 1996. It was. a love marriage against the
wishes of the parents. On 28th May, 1998, a boy, namely, Mas-
+ ter Satyajeet was born from the wedlock. However, within a short
time, the relationship between the spouses came under strain. F
The appellant, who was employed as a teacher, felt that the re-
spondent had misrepresented to her about his occupational
status; he did not have any regular income to support the family;
he was addicted to alcoliol and smoking and also had contacts
...... with anti-social elements. The appellant, it is claimed, had to G
support the respondent and his family with the meagre income
she earned from her school job and private tuitions. It was al-
leged that the respondent would force her to keep all her sav-
ings in a joint bank account, from which he used to withdraw
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 8 S.C.R.
A money. She was subjected to physical violence, due to which,
on 161h August. 2001, she was forced to leave her matrimonial
home at Allahabad, leaving the infant with the father.
4. On reaching Calcutta, where her parents were living,
B she filed a suit for divorce against respondent, which was de-
creed ex-parte on 121h September, 2002. Since no appeal was -+ •
preferred by the respondent against the said decree, it attained
finality.
C 5. On 5th April, 2003, the appellant moved a petition under
Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read
with the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956 before the Family Court, Allahabad seeking a declaration
in her favour to be the lawful guardian of her minor son, Satyajeet
o and a direction to the respondent to hand over the custody of
the child to her.
6. The application was hotly contested by the respondent.
Resisting her claim, it was alleged that having left him when he
E was less than three years of age, the appellant had no emo-
tional bond with the child; after leaving Allahabad, she had not
even talked to the minor child over the telephone or enquired
about his welfare; being the natural guardian of the child he was
capable of and was, in fact, looking after the welfare of the child; +
F the child was studying in a prestigious school at Allahabad for
which he was paying a fee of Rs.25,000/- per annum and had
also nominated him in his insurance policy. As regards his fi-
nancial position, it was stated that he owns a house, telephone
and a motor car whereas the appellant has no house of her own
G and is living with her mother and brother in a two-room flat at
Calcutta.
7. In support of her contentions, the appellant examined
herself as PW-1 and two doctors. On the other hand, the re-
H
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI v. 265
' "" JAYANT GANGULI [D.K. JAIN, J.]
spondent examined himself as DW-1 and two of his neighbours fa,
as DW-2 and DW-3. Inter alia, observing that the welfare and
interest of the minor is of utmost importance in relation to grant
of custody to either of the parents and taking into consideration
the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Court found
. .... the respondent to be unfit to act as a guardian of the minor child . B
The Court felt that the appellant had never neglected her child
but had to leave Allahabad to save her life. According to the
Family Court, several applications moved by the appellant for
interim custody, during the pendency of the custody applica- ·
!ion, showed that she had affection for her child. The Court ob-
c
served that the appellant was a highly qualified teacher draw-
ing a salary of Rs.22,000/- per month whereas the respondent
_). was only a private contractor without regular source of income
and though the child was studying in a prestigious school in D
Allahabad, there was lack of constant care and protection of
the child in the house of the respondent. Finding the testimony
of the appellant and her two witnesses to be credible, the Fam-
ily Court held that for the welfare of the child, the custody should
be with the mother. Accordingly, the application was allowed: E
the appellant was declared to be the lawful guardian of her mi-
nor son and the respondent was directed to hand over the cus-
" tody of Satyajeet to the appellant, within one month of the date
+ of judgment.
F
8. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred Regular
Appeal to the High Court. Vide order dated 2s:h February, 2007,
the High Court has set aside the order of the Family Court and
granted permanent custody of Satyajeet to the respondent.
-1 During the pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 710 No- G
vember. 2005, as an interim measure, the High Court granted
the custody of the child to the appellant. The High Court ob-
tained the opinion of the Director of Psychology, Allahabad, who
examined the mother, the father and the child and also talked to
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. ;.. '
A the child practically on every date of hearing. In the proceed-
ings held on 23rd May, 2006, extracted in the impugned order, in
response to the question as to whether he would like to stay
with his father or mother, the child stated that he would prefer to
stay at Allahabad as it is his birth place and his mother should
B come and stay with him at Allahabad. It is significant to note that ~
.
the child had stated so despite the fact that he was living with
his mother since 71h November, 2005, under the orders of the
Court. Taking into account the material on record, the High Court
found that: (i) the respondent is financially sound and able to
c cater to all the needs of the child for his development whereas
the appellant is unable to provide the same since she is living
all alone; (ii) the child is not able to reconcile with his uprooting
from Allahabad and denial of love and affection of the father; II;.-
D and (iii) the questions which were put to the child and answers
thereto indicate that the child wants to study at Allahabad. Hav-
ing regard to the prevalent circumstances and the fact that the
child had received his education from primary stage with his
father at Allahabad, the Court came to the conclusion that the
E welfare and development of the child and his future would be
best served at present at Allahabad in the hands of the father.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order passed by the
•
Family Court and granted the custody of Master Satyajeet to 1'
the respondent, with the following direction~:
F
"1. The appellant shall make arrangement for master
Satyajeet to continue his studies in best schools of
Allahabad and will ensure the development and welfare of
the child in the best way possible.
G
2. The respondent-mother Ms. Mausami Moitra shall be
at liberty to visit the child either in the appellant's house or
in the premises of mutual friend or at an agreed place at
any point of time and the appellant-father shall not object
H to her meeting with the child.
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI v. 267
' .... JAYANT GANGULI [D.K. JAIN, J.]
3. The appellant will also allow the child to live with the A
mother during school vacations or on appropriate
occasions.
4. Master Satyajeet shall be allowed to attend and
participate in family functions/festivities subject to his B
• + school attendance and examinations etc. which are held
in the family of her mother or during any other occasions
as jointly agreed to by the both the appellant-father and
the respondent-mother.
5. Any other further arrangements mutually agreed to
c
between the appellant-father and the respondent-mother
in the interest of the child."
-:J. Consequently, the custody of the child was restored to the
D
father. ltis this order of the High Court which is under challenge
in the present appeal.
9. When the matter came up for hearing, while issuing
notice to the respondent, it was directed that the -appellant-
mother and the respondent-father will remain present in Court E
in person and the father shall also bring the child with him. On
241h January, 2008, both the parties and Master Satyajeet ap-
• peared before us. Before hearing the case, we interviewed
't Satyajeet in chambers and found that he was quite intelligent
F
and was able to understand the facts and circumstances in which
he was placed. He could comprehend matters ~nd visualize his
own well-being. He seemed to have no complaint against his
father. He explicitly stated before us that he was not inclined to
., go with his mother and would like to stay with his father and
continue his studies at Allahabad where he has quite a few
G
friends.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit-
ted that the order of the High Court directing handing over of the
custody of the minor child to the father is vitiated because the
High Court has ignored the basic principles of law relating to
the custody of the child, as enunciated by this Court in several
B judgments. It was contended that the High Court has failed to
take note of a vital fact that being a contractor, the husband + •
would remain away from the house most of the time and, there-
fore, will have very little time at his disposal to look after the
needs of the child, who is left under the care of father's old
c mother. It was also urged that being a school teacher in a public
school, the appellant will be in a much better position to take
care of the needs of the child. It was pointed out that the appel-
lant has now joined Delhi Public School at Panipat and has been
0 allotted a staff quarter where the child can stay under her care
and can also study in the same school. It is, thus, asserted that
the appellant-mother would be in a much better position to take
care of the needs of the child in comparison to the respondent.
E 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the
other hand, while refuting the allegation regar~ing the non-avail-
ability of the respondent, laid stress on the fact that during inter-
view of the child by the High Court and this Court, the child has
in very clear terms expressed the desire to stay with the father •
F which shows that Ile is being looked after properly and is al-
ready studying in a good school at Allahabad. It was submitted
that shifting of the child from Allahabad to Panipat in an abso-
lutely new environment, all alone, with the mother. who had aban-
doned him when he was less than three years of age would not
G only adversely affect his studies, it will also affect him emotion-
ally.
13. Thus. as noted supra. the short question for consider-
ation is whether the circumstances as highlighted by the par-
H
MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI v. 269
JAYANT GANGULI [D.K. JAIN, J.]
' ~
ties warrant that the custody of the child should be changed from A
father to the mother?
14. The principles of law in relation to the custody of a
minor child are well settled. It is trite that while determining the
question as to which parent the care and control of a child should B
Jo, be committed, the first and the paramount consideration is the
"
welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents
under a statute. Indubitably the provisions of law pertaining to
the custody of a child contained in either the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 (Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and Guard- c
ianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the welfare of the
child as a predominant consideration. In fact, no statute, on the
subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the
welfare of the minor. The question of welfare of the minor child
_j.
has again to be considered in the background of the relevant D
facts and circ.;umstances. Each case has to be decideJ on its
own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve as binding
precedents insofar as the factual aspects of the case are con-
cerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is presumed by the stat-
E
utes to be better suited to look after the welfare of the child,
being normally the working member and head of the family, yet
in each case the Court has to see primarily to the welfare of the
•.,_ child in determining the question of his or her custody. Better
financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the F
child may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be
the sole determining factor for the custody of the child. It is here
that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise its judicial
discretion judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts
., and circumstances, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as G
the paramount consideration.
15. In Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in a rather curt language had ob-
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
~ r
A served that the children are not mere chattels; nor are they mere
play-things fortheir parents. Absolute right of parents over the
destinies and the lives of their children has, in the modern
changecfsocial conditions, yielded to the considerations of their
welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal
B balanced manner to be useful members of the society and the
guardian court in case of a dispute between the mother and the ;. •
father, is expected to strike a just and proper balance between
the requirements of welfare of the minor children and the rights
of their respective parents over them.
c
16. In Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Vo/.13),
the law pertaining to the custody and maintenance of children
has been succinctly stated in the following terms:
"809. Principles as to custody and upbringing of k.
D
minors. Where in any proceedings before any court. the
custody or upbringing of a minor is in question, the court,
in deciding that question, must regard the welfare of the
minor as the first and paramount consideration, and must
E not take into consideration whether from any other point of
view the claim of the father in respect of such custody or
upbringing is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of
F
the mother is superior to that of the father. In relation to the
custody or upbringing of a minor, a mother has the same .•
rights and authority as the law allows to a father, and the
rights and authority of mother and father are equal and are
exercisable by either without the other."
17. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the
G material on record and the observations made by the courts
~
below, we are of the view that in the present case there is no
ground to upset the judgment and order of the High Court. There
is nothing on record to suggest that the welfare of the child is in
any way in peril in the hands of the father. In our opinion, the
H
~ . MAUSAMI MOITRA GANGULI v.
JAYANT GANGULI [D.K. JAIN, J.]
271
stability and security of the child is also an essential ingredient A
for a full develop111ent of child's talent and personality. As noted
above, the appellant is a teacher, now employed in a school at
Panipat, where she had shifted from Chandigarh some time
back. Earlier she was teaching in some school at Calcutta.
Admittedly, she is living all alone. Except for a very short dura- B
tion when he was with the appellant, Master Satyajeet has been
• J.;
living and studying.in Allahabad in a gooa school and stated to
have his small group of friends there. At Panipat, it would be an
entirely new environment for him as compared to Allahabad.
Having interviewed Satyajeet in our chambers for some time,
c
we find it difficult to accept the stand of the appellant that the
father does not have sufficient time or resources to look after
the welfare of the child. We are convinced that the dislocation
of Satyajeet, at this stage, from Allahabad, where he has grown D
-+ up in sufficiently good surroundings, would not only impede his
schooling, it may also cause emotional strain and depression
on him. It is also significant to note that during the course of
hearing on one of the dates, when we had not yet interviewed
Satyajeet, we had suggested that it would be better if the child E
could stay with his mother for some more time. However, upon
hearing us, he started crying and whining and, s_howed reluc-
tance to go with the mother. Watching his reaction, we dropped
• the proposal. Under these circumstances and bearing in mind
't the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, we are F
convinced that child's interest and welfare will be best served if
he continues to be in the custody of the father. In our opinion, for
the present, it is not desirable to disturb the custody of Master
Satyajeet and, therefore, the order of the High Court giving his
exclusive custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother G
deserves to be maintained. We feel that the visitation rights given
to the appellant by the High Court, as noted above, also do not
require any modification. We, therefore, affirm the order and
the afore-extracted directions given by the High Court. It will,
H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A however. be open to the parties to move this Court for modifi-
cation of this order or for seeking any direction regarding the
custody and well-being of the child. if there is any change in the
circumstances.
B 18. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accord-
ingly. However, having regard to the nature of the case, we leave
the parties to bear their own costs. ii •
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "custody"Sign in to search