The Allahabad high court has held that a father, being the natural guardian of his minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot be denied her custody unless he is shown to be unfit to be her guardian.
“In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father has a paramount right to the custody of the children, he cannot be deprived of the custody of the minor child unless it is shown that he is unfit to be her guardian,” the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held in its August 21 order.
The appellant was an advocate at Prayagraj, married in 2019, and a daughter was born in 2022. In 2023, his wife’s brothers took her and the child to her parental home. The appellant’s wife died in 2024.
When his father-in-law and three brothers-in-law refused to give the custody of the child to him, he moved a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
The respondents pleaded that the appellant tortured and physically abused his wife for dowry. It was submitted that the child had lived with her maternal grandfather since she was a few months old and that the appellant was likely to remarry.
{{/usCountry}}The respondents pleaded that the appellant tortured and physically abused his wife for dowry. It was submitted that the child had lived with her maternal grandfather since she was a few months old and that the appellant was likely to remarry.
{{/usCountry}}The trial court had dismissed the suit filed by father of the child, against which the present appeal was filed. The court noted that the child stays by turns with the grandfather and with a maternal aunt who has five children so that the respondents are not caring for her alone.
“Though we are cognizant of the fact that the minor daughter would face difficulties in adjusting with the appellant and his family, but at the same time, we also are mindful of the fact that the future prospects of the minor daughter do not seem to be very secure and stable if she is allowed to stay with the respondents,” the court said.
“Better future prospects of the minor cannot be jeopardized at the cost of difficulties she is going to face on account of the changed circumstances, if her custody is given to the appellant,” it observed.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to hand over custody of the minor to the appellant within a month.