Custody Battle Over Minor Child: Supreme Court Upholds Stability and Welfare

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in the custody dispute concerning a minor child in the case of Shazia Aman Khan and Another vs. The State of Orissa and Others. The case revolved around whether the biological father of a minor girl should be granted custody or whether the existing arrangement, where she had been living with her maternal aunt since infancy, should continue.

The case raised fundamental legal issues concerning child custody under parens patriae jurisdiction and the primacy of the child’s welfare over parental rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that the child, now 14 years old, had been living with the appellants since infancy and expressed her preference to remain with them. The Court ruled in favor of maintaining the status quo, prioritizing the minor’s stability and well-being over the biological father’s rights.

Background of the Case

The case emerged when the biological father, respondent no. 2, filed a writ petition seeking the custody of his daughter, Sumaiya Khanam (now known as Dania Aman Khan), whom he had left in the care of her maternal grandmother shortly after birth due to financial difficulties. Later, the child was taken in by her maternal aunt (appellant no. 2), who raised her as her own.

For several years, respondent no. 2 made no attempts to claim custody. In 2015, he filed a police complaint alleging kidnapping, but the police concluded that there was no case of abduction. In 2017, he filed another criminal complaint, which remains pending. His wife also attempted to retrieve the child through a habeas corpus petition, but later withdrew it.

High Court Decision and Supreme Court Appeal

The Orissa High Court directed the child to be handed over to the biological father. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the child had been living with them since infancy and that uprooting her at this stage would not be in her best interest.

The Supreme Court granted leave and examined the matter extensively, including interacting with the child.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

Arguments by the Appellants

The child has been with them since infancy, and removing her from the only home she has known would be detrimental.
Respondent no. 2 only started claiming custody years after leaving the child with her maternal relatives.
Appellant no. 2 and her husband (respondent no. 10) were willing to ensure the child’s future, including financial security and inheritance rights.
The child herself expressed her desire to remain with the appellants.
Islamic law does not recognize adoption, but under Kafalah, the child can remain under their care without severing ties with her biological parents.

Arguments by Respondent No. 2

The biological parents never intended to abandon the child; they only sought temporary assistance in raising her.
Due to delays caused by personal circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic, legal action for custody was taken late.
Appellant no. 2 is now married to a man who is not a close relative under Islamic law, making the continued custody of the child legally questionable.
The child’s twin sister lives with the biological parents, and reuniting them is in their best interest.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court focused on legal principles governing child custody and emphasized that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The Court referred to several past judgments, including:

Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed – Held that custody and guardianship are distinct, and a biological father’s legal rights may be overridden if the child’s best interests require so.
Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu – Stressed that courts must prioritize the child’s well-being over parental rights.
Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli – Highlighted the importance of stability in a child’s upbringing.

After interacting with the child, the Court noted that she had developed strong emotional bonds with the appellants and considered them her parents. She was well-settled and expressed no desire to shift to her biological father’s home.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Orissa High Court’s order. The child will continue to stay with the appellants. The Court stated:

“The child cannot be treated as a chattel at the age of 14 years to be handed over to the respondent no. 2, where she has not lived ever since her birth. Stability of the child is of paramount consideration.”

The judgment reaffirmed that courts must act in the best interests of the child, rather than strictly enforcing parental rights. The Court also encouraged the appellants to honor their commitment to the child’s future security.

Petitioner Name: Shazia Aman Khan and Another.
Respondent Name: The State of Orissa and Others.
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Orissa.
Judgment Date: 04-03-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: shazia-aman-khan-and-vs-the-state-of-orissa-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-04-03-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category