Mumbai: Putting an end to the bitter battle over the custody of a 17-month-old child, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a father is the natural guardian of a child and accordingly granted him the infant’s custody. A division bench of Justices Indrajit Mahanty and Sarang Kotwal was seized with the custody case, which the judges described as having ‘a backdrop of unfortunate situations and tragedy.’
The judges were hearing a plea filed by Shekhar Tewari, a resident of New Mumbai, seeking custody of his minor child. He had filed a writ of habeas corpus through advocate Subhash Jha, seeking a direction to his in-laws who were looking after his daughter since her birth. According to Tewari, he was married in May 2006 and in 2017, when his wife was five months pregnant, she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
During the same period, Tewari too was detected with tuberculosis and had to be hospitalised. Amidst all this turbulence, his daughter was born. Tragically, his wife succumbed to cancer within 14 months of the baby’s birth. The daughter, from the very day of her birth, was looked after her maternal uncles and aunts. By 2018, Tewari having been cured, came down to Pune, to meet his daughter. However, his in-laws refused to even let him see the baby.
Subsequently, he petitioned the HC bench, led by Justice Mahanty, seeking custody of the child. Having heard the contentions, the bench noted the fact, that the parties had dragged a motherless 17-month-old child into their battle. “We are of the considered view that the father of the child is the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
He is the surviving parent of the child,” the judges said in their orders. “The child of about 17 months of age definitely needs love, care and affection of the father. It cannot be said the welfare of the child will be compromised if the custody is handed over to the father,” the order reads. The bench noted the fact that the father – Tewari, is highly edu – cated and gainfully employed in a multinational company.
“There is no reason to deprive him from custody of the child,” the judges ruled. Noting her ‘tender age’ the bench said, “The child is not yet capable of forming and expressing her wish. Therefore, we are of the consid – ered view, that the father is entitled to get the custody of his child.”
