HC allows 6-year-old to live with grandparents | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 29, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC allows 6-year-old to live with grandparents

Taking into account the wishes of a six-year-old boy, the Bombay high court has set aside a sessions court’s order that handed over his custody to his father and let the child continue to live with his grandparents.

mumbai Updated: Jul 26, 2012 01:03 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari

Taking into account the wishes of a six-year-old boy, the Bombay high court has set aside a sessions court’s order that handed over his custody to his father and let the child continue to live with his grandparents.

Justice SS Shinde interviewed Krishna in his chamber before pronouncing the judgment in a bitter legal battle between the boy’s father and maternal grandparents over his custody.

Last Thursday, the court set aside the order of the Ambejogai sessions court, which had directed Bhagwan Rathod to hand over the child to his son-in-law, Ashok Pawar. “It is true that the respondent, being the father, is the natural guardian, and in a normal course, the child’s custody should be with the father,” justice Shinde observed. “But in view of the fact that the child desires to stay with his grandfather and doesn’t wish to return to his father, the paramount interest of the child is required to be protected.”

Krishna’s mother passed away in January 2006, barely one-and-a-half months after his birth.

Since then, he has been living with his grandparents at his native place in Parli-Vaijnath tehsil, Beed district.

In 2006, the boy’s father approached the sessions court for his custody.

Acting on his plea, the court directed Rathod in August 2009 to hand over the child to his father within three months.

Rathod challenged the order in high court.

On July 19, Justice Shinde also took into consideration several Supreme Court verdicts in which it has held that when it comes to a minor’s custody, what is of paramount importance is the welfare of the child and not the rights of the parents or relatives.

The sumpreme court has previously observed that a child’s welfare may have primacy even over statutory provisions.