(Hindi trasnslation below)
In the case of Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025 INSC 159), the Supreme Court of India resolved a contentious custody battle between the father of a minor child and the child’s maternal grandparents.
The child had been living with his maternal grandparents since 2021 after his mother’s passing. The father, an Administrative Service Officer, had remarried and sought custody through a Habeas Corpus petition, which was initially denied by the High Court.
Mr. Gopal Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellantfather would rely on the decision of this Court in Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and another1 which emphasizes the need of the minor child to be with the natural guardian; especially when the mother is no more. It is pointed out that the circumstances coming out in the above case are identical insofar as, after the death of the mother, the father being denied the company of the child. Obviously the child did not have any familiarity with the father, the death of the mother having occurred in the year 2021.
It is also submitted that the paternal grandfather of the minor child has conveyed a property in the name of the minor child to ensure his welfare and also deposited an amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs in the child’s name. The father who is an Administrative Service Officer of the State, though re-married, is confident that the second wife would look after the child as a mother and draw support from the affidavit of his second wife who undertakes to take care of the child as her own and endorses fully her husband’s need and desire to have the child with them for the betterment of his future
The Supreme Court overturned this decision, reinforcing the father’s rights as the natural guardian while ensuring the child’s welfare remained the paramount consideration. A key legal issue in the case was whether a Habeas Corpus petition was maintainable in custody disputes.
The grandparents contended that such matters should be adjudicated under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA), but the Court upheld past precedents that allow Habeas Corpus relief when a child’s detention by non-parents is illegal or without authority. Another crucial aspect was the welfare of the child.
Although the father’s remarriage and the child’s established bond with his grandparents were factors, the Court ultimately recognized the father’s stable income, property conveyance to the child, and his second wife’s affidavit pledging care as indicators of a suitable custodial environment. The Court also noted that the grandparents’ legal standing under the GWA was limited, and their reliance on financial support from the father through a maintenance petition weakened their claim.
While the child expressed a preference for staying with his grandparents, the Court emphasized his formative years spent with his parents before 2021 and structured a phased transition to ensure minimal disruption.
8. In the present case also, the father is seeking custody of the child from the grand-parents who were also looking after the child with the help of the siblings of the mother; admittedly. The grandfather had also initiated a
proceeding for maintenance, claiming Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month for the child; which makes it clear that the grand-parents are unable to look after the child by themselves.
10. We cannot but observe that the learned Single Judge has notendeavored to elicit the child’s attitude towards his father. Admittedly, the child, after his birth, was with his parents for about 10 years till the death of his mother.
He was separated from the father in 2021 and has been living with his grandparents, who cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian. There is no allegation of any matrimonial dispute when the mother of the child was alive nor a complaint of abuse perpetrated against the wife or son. The father, the natural guardian, we reiterate, is well employed and educated and there is nothing standing against his legal rights; as a natural guardian, and legitimate desire to have the custody of his child. We are of the opinion that the welfare of the child, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be best served if custodys given to the father.
The final order outlined a custody timeline in which the child would remain with his grandparents until April 30, 2025, allowing him to complete his current academic year, with the father granted alternate weekend custody. Full custody would transfer to the father from May 1, 2025, under police supervision, with provisions for post-custody visitation by the grandparents.
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s balanced approach, upholding the natural guardian’s rights while ensuring a smooth transition to protect the child’s emotional well-being. By allowing Habeas Corpus in custody matters and structuring a phased custody plan, the Court reinforced its commitment to both legal guardianship principles and the child’s best interests.
विवेक कुमार चतुर्वेदी बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पिता को दी बच्चे की हिरासत
विवेक कुमार चतुर्वेदी एवं अन्य बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य एवं अन्य (2025 INSC 159) के मामले में, भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने एक नाबालिग बच्चे की हिरासत को लेकर उसके पिता और नाना-नानी के बीच चले विवाद का समाधान किया। बच्चा 2021 से अपनी मां के निधन के बाद अपने नाना-नानी के साथ रह रहा था। उसके पिता, जो एक प्रशासनिक सेवा अधिकारी हैं, ने पुनर्विवाह कर लिया था और बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण याचिका (Habeas Corpus) के माध्यम से बच्चे की हिरासत की मांग की थी, जिसे उच्च न्यायालय ने अस्वीकार कर दिया था। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस निर्णय को पलटते हुए पिता के प्राकृतिक अभिभावक होने के अधिकार को मान्यता दी, साथ ही बच्चे के सर्वोत्तम हितों को प्राथमिकता दी।
इस मामले में एक प्रमुख कानूनी प्रश्न यह था कि क्या हिरासत विवादों में बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण याचिका स्वीकार्य हो सकती है। नाना-नानी ने तर्क दिया कि इस प्रकार के मामलों का निपटारा अभिभावक और वार्ड अधिनियम, 1980 (GWA) के तहत होना चाहिए। हालांकि, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पूर्ववर्ती निर्णयों (गौतम कुमार दास बनाम NCT दिल्ली एवं तेजस्विनी गौड़ बनाम शेखर तिवारी) को ध्यान में रखते हुए स्पष्ट किया कि जब गैर-अभिभावकों द्वारा बच्चे की अभिरक्षा अवैध या अधिकारविहीन हो, तब बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण याचिका के माध्यम से राहत प्राप्त की जा सकती है।
एक अन्य महत्वपूर्ण पहलू बच्चे का कल्याण था। भले ही पिता के पुनर्विवाह और नाना-नानी के साथ बच्चे के भावनात्मक संबंध को ध्यान में रखा गया, लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पाया कि पिता की स्थिर आय, बच्चे के नाम संपत्ति हस्तांतरण, और उनकी दूसरी पत्नी द्वारा देखभाल का आश्वासन देने वाला हलफनामा, उसे उपयुक्त अभिभावक साबित करता है। इसके विपरीत, नाना-नानी की कानूनी स्थिति GWA के तहत सीमित थी, और पिता से ₹20,000 प्रतिमाह के भरण-पोषण की मांग, उनके आर्थिक रूप से आत्मनिर्भर न होने का संकेत देती थी, जिससे उनकी अभिरक्षा का दावा कमजोर हुआ।
यद्यपि बच्चे ने नाना-नानी के साथ रहने की इच्छा व्यक्त की थी, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह ध्यान में रखा कि 2021 से पहले उसका अधिकांश जीवन अपने माता-पिता के साथ बीता था। इसलिए, अदालत ने बच्चे की शिक्षा और भावनात्मक स्थिरता सुनिश्चित करने के लिए एक चरणबद्ध (gradual) अभिरक्षा योजना बनाई।
न्यायालय का अंतिम आदेश:
बच्चा 30 अप्रैल, 2025 तक अपने नाना-नानी के पास रहेगा ताकि वह अपना मौजूदा शैक्षणिक वर्ष पूरा कर सके।
पिता को वैकल्पिक सप्ताहांत अभिरक्षा (शुक्रवार शाम से रविवार शाम तक) का अधिकार दिया गया।
1 मई, 2025 से बच्चे की पूर्ण अभिरक्षा पिता को सौंपी जाएगी, जिसे आवश्यकतानुसार पुलिस सहायता से क्रियान्वित किया जाएगा।
इसके बाद, नाना-नानी को सप्ताहांत में मुलाकात और प्रत्येक माह दूसरे शनिवार को विशेष मुलाकात की अनुमति दी जाएगी।
निर्णय दर्शाता है कि न्यायपालिका ने प्राकृतिक अभिभावक के अधिकारों और बच्चे के सर्वोत्तम हितों के बीच संतुलन स्थापित किया। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने न केवल बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण को हिरासत विवादों में एक प्रभावी उपाय के रूप में स्वीकार किया, बल्कि एक सुनियोजित संक्रमणकालीन व्यवस्था भी सुनिश्चित की ताकि बच्चे की शिक्षा और भावनात्मक स्थिरता प्रभावित न हो।
Disclaimer: The content provided here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Views expressed are based on publicly available case details and interpretations of law, which may evolve over time. For specific legal concerns, consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. No attorney-client relationship is formed through this content. Always verify the current status of laws and precedents before relying on them.
Comments