E-Paper
Grandparents most energetic while taking care of grandchild, says SC
The bench stayed the HC order of May 2 handing over the custody of the five-year old to his maternal aunt, aged 46.
New Delhi: Deciding the custody of a five-year old boy who lost both his parents to Covid-19 last year, the Supreme Court on Monday observed that grandparents are more energetic while looking after the interests of grandchildren.
Reserving orders on the plea filed by the 71-year-old grandfather Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya who along with his 63-year-old wife were aggrieved by a Gujarat high court order granting custody of the child to a maternal aunt, a bench of justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose said, “71 years and 63 years is nothing. If paternal grandparents are there, they have the most energy while taking care of the grandchild.”
The bench stayed the HC order of May 2 handing over the custody of the five-year old to his maternal aunt, aged 46. The high court took this decision in the best interest of the child as it noted that paternal grandparents were aged and would not be in a position to look after the needs of the child. On the other hand, the maternal aunt, being comparatively young, employed and single would be better placed to look after the child’s interests.
The bench said that it will pronounce its order on Thursday and allowed the maternal aunt represented by advocate Rauf Rahim to file a response to the petition in the meantime. Rahim submitted to the Court that the aunt having more energy at her age would be better placed to take care of the child.
The petitioner, a resident of Ahmedabad was a retired Central government employee enjoying a comfortable lifestyle and claimed that after the death of his son and daughter-in-law, the child has remained with the maternal aunt, who resides at Dahod. Petitioner’s lawyer GN Ray told the Court throughout the child was cared by the grandparents and it was only during the pandemic he was separated from them.
Rahim told the Court that there was a history to this case as the petitioner was opposed to the marriage of his son to a woman of a different caste. For this reason, he alleged that the maternal family supported the petitioner’s son and daughter-in-law who lived separately from the petitioner at Ahmedabad. Moreover, Rahim claimed that the high court noted the fact that the maternal family was living as a joint family where the child would get all care and support. “Upbringing in a big family will have a substantial difference on the child than staying in a nuclear family at this stage,” Rahim said.
The bench also saw the matter through the prism of the child’s future. The judges said, “The maternal aunt is unmarried and is staying in Dahod. As far as the education of the child is concerned, education facilities are better in Ahmedabad. The grandparents will take better care of the child’s education. Why should the grandparents be deprived of taking care of their grandchild’s interest.”
Rahim told the Court, “Grandparents are there on the other side too. We have also lost our daughter. The maternal aunt is staying with the maternal grandparents. Moreover, I (maternal aunt) have no encumbrances, no child and the school where the child in question is going is close by. You need someone who has more energy to look after a five-year old.”
The petitioner claimed that the maternal aunt was not allowing him to take any possession belonging to the child from her custody. The high court had tried to amicably resolve the dispute considering the immense trauma and agony suffered by both sides as also the child who was unaware of the fact that his parents are no more.
In its order, the HC held, “We are not ignorant of the fact that for the petitioner and his wife, having seen their children dying in front of them, corpus (child) is their ray of life and hope. However, welfare of the corpus being the paramount consideration as of now, sentiments expressed by both the sides alone may not act as guiding factor.”
