The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that while the welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, it is not the sole determinant. The Court emphasized that parental conduct, foreign court orders, and the child’s expressed preferences must be weighed cumulatively to ensure a just outcome.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife, both Indian citizens educated and employed abroad, married in Srinagar in 2015 under Muslim Personal Law. They resided in Qatar, where their two sons - Malik Karim Billah (born 2017) and Malik Rahim Billah (born 2019) - were born. After marital discord, both filed for divorce in Qatar. A common judgment dated 29.03.2022 granted judicial divorce, awarded custody of the minors to the respondent-wife, and appointed the appellant-husband as guardian. The appellant was directed to hand over all personal documents except passports.
Procedural History
- August 2022: Respondent-wife traveled to Srinagar with the children using newly procured passports, without the appellant’s consent or court permission.
- October 2022: Appellant filed Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
- December 2022: Respondent-wife gave an undertaking before the Division Bench to return to Qatar by 02.01.2023 to avoid disruption to the elder child’s education. The LPA was disposed of on this basis.
- December 2022: Respondent-wife traveled to Qatar alone, leaving the children in India.
- October 2023: Qatar Family Court revoked custody in favor of the respondent-wife and awarded it to the appellant-husband.
- August 2024: Srinagar Contempt Court found the respondent-wife guilty of violating her undertaking and sentenced her to a token fine.
- January 2025: Family Court, Srinagar granted custody to the appellant-husband under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
- September 2025: High Court reversed the Family Court’s order, restoring custody to the respondent-wife, holding that only the child’s welfare matters.
Relief Sought
The appellant seeks restoration of custody of the two minor sons, arguing that the High Court erred in ignoring material factors including the respondent’s misconduct, the revocation of custody by the Qatar court, and the children’s expressed desire to live with him.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 permits courts to consider parental conduct, foreign custody orders, and the child’s preference alongside the paramount principle of welfare, or whether welfare must be assessed in isolation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Senior counsel Ms. Meenakshi Arora argued that the respondent-wife’s unilateral removal of the children from Qatar during the academic term, procurement of duplicate passports, and violation of a court undertaking constituted wrongful conduct that should disentitle her to custody. She cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that a parent cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing. She emphasized the children’s comfort with the father, their English-language proficiency, and the father’s flexible work schedule enabling him to provide stable care.
For the Respondent
Senior counsel Mr. Altaf Hussain Naik contended that the sole criterion under Section 25 is the child’s welfare, and that financial status, conduct, or foreign orders are irrelevant. He stressed that the children were settled in a reputed school in Srinagar, performed well academically, and that the High Court’s in-chambers interaction showed no clear preference for the father. He argued that the Qatar court’s order was not enforceable in India and should not influence domestic custody determinations.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s narrow interpretation that only abstract "welfare" matters. It held that welfare is not a monolithic concept but must be assessed through concrete, contextual factors.
"It may not be entirely correct on the part of the High Court in holding that such factors [conduct, financial capacity, standard of living] are not very relevant and that the custody of the minors has to depend upon their welfare alone."
The Court emphasized that the respondent-wife’s conduct - removing the children from Qatar without consent, violating a court undertaking, and obtaining fraudulent passports - was not merely incidental but directly impacted the children’s stability and legal standing. The revocation of custody by the Qatar court on 31.10.2023 was a legally significant event that the High Court ignored, despite its direct relevance to the children’s legal custody status.
The Court also noted that the Contempt Court’s finding of guilt, which had attained finality, could not be disregarded. The mediation report and counselor’s observations, which indicated the children’s comfort with the father and distress at separation from him, were material evidence the High Court overlooked.
The Court further clarified that while a child’s preference is not determinative, it is a relevant indicator of emotional well-being, especially when corroborated by professional assessments. The children’s linguistic and cultural dislocation in Srinagar, coupled with the father’s capacity to provide continuity, weighed in his favor.
The High Court’s failure to consider these cumulative factors rendered its order legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court held that welfare of the child under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 must be assessed by considering parental conduct, foreign custody orders, and the child’s expressed preferences as integral components, not as extraneous factors. The High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration within four months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conduct Can Disentitle a Parent to Custody
- Practitioners must now plead and prove parental misconduct - such as unilateral international relocation, falsification of documents, or breach of court undertakings - as grounds to disqualify a parent from custody.
- Courts cannot ignore violations of foreign court orders if they reflect a pattern of disregard for legal process.
Foreign Custody Orders Are Relevant Evidence
- Orders from foreign jurisdictions, especially those involving child custody, must be formally placed on record and evaluated for their evidentiary weight.
- A foreign court’s revocation of custody is not merely informational but may indicate a legal conclusion on parental fitness.
Child Preference Requires Professional Corroboration
-
A child’s expressed desire to live with one parent must be assessed through court-appointed counselors or mediators, not just informal observations.
-
Linguistic, cultural, and emotional adaptation should be documented and weighed as part of welfare.
-
Always request mediation reports and school attendance records in custody disputes.
-
File certified copies of foreign custody orders under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish their evidentiary value.
-
Challenge custody awards based solely on "welfare" without examining conduct or context as legally flawed.
