MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Father was given custody in spite that the child wants to live with mother.


Decided on February 15,1989


AIR 1989 Bom 357

Equivalent citations: AIR 1989 Bom 357, 1989 (2) BomCR 120, (1989) 91 BOMLR 107, 1989 MhLJ 373
Bench: Bharucha.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and other of the Addl. District Judge, Dhule, allowing the application of the present respondent for being appointed the guardian of his two minor sons and for their custody.

2. The appellant and the respondent are Muslims. They were married under the Muslim Law in 1975. They cohabited together until 1979. On 17th December, 1976 the elder child Sayyad and on 19th April 1979 the younger child Yusuf were born to them.

3. After the appellant and the respondent started residing separately in 1970 the appellant filed an application under the code of criminal Procedure for maintenance for the two sons and on 12th October, 1981 the maintenance aggregating to the 1982 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights and it was decreed on 10th January, 1983. The parties, however, did not reside together thereafter.

4. In 1986 the respondent preferred an application under the Guardians and Wards Act . the order whereon is challenged in this appeal/ Evidence was led. The learned judge noted that both the children were above 7 years of age and that under Muslim Law a mother was entitled to the custody of her male children only until they attained the age of 7 years. He found also that the welfare of the minors did not lie in favour of their residing with their mother. He noted, however, that the children had expressed the wish to say with were not of an age when they could make an intelligent preference. The learned not support her case that the respondent had remarried.

See also  SC : Sentence undergone, Age of convict, No criminal antecedents, Non-denial of Commission - Relevant facts to alter punishment

5. The children , by reason of the stay order passed in this appeal, remained with the appellant. At an earlier stage of the hearing of the appeal, a reconciliation between the parties was attempted, but I am informed that they are no longer residing together.

6. There is no doubt that under Muslim Law the father is entitled to the custody of a son over 7 years of age (See Section 357 in Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, 18th edition). The evidence on record does not establish that the respondent has remarried or contracted any illicit liaisons . the evidence of the appellant indicates that she has difficulty in maintaining the children within the sum of Rs.100 per month awarded to her as and by way of their maintenance. There is, upon the record , some doubt as to the fixed residence of the appellant. There is, therefore , no good reason why the ordinary rule of Mohammedan Law should not be adhered to in the present case and it must, in the circumstances prevail over the desire of the children.

7. The learned Judge was, therefore justified in awarding the custody of the children to the respondent . As he has observed, the respondent is under the law their guardian, so that no declaration in that behalf was really necessary.

8. It does appear, however, unfair that the appellant and the children should have no opportunity of seeing each other and living together for brief periods of time. Since the order under appeal makes no provisions for access and since the advocates for the parties appearing before me are not sure of the schools that the children attend and the vacations therein, I make it clear that the District court for the purposes of obtaining access to the children.

See also  Court can compel one of the parents to move from one country to another in Child Custody case?

9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Liberty. However. Is reserved to the appellant to move the Disrict Court for appropriate orders for access.

10. No order as to costs.

11. Appeal dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Definition of cruelty does not include petty disputes which are part and parcel of married life
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation