The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, transferred interim custody of a 12-year-old girl to her mother, citing the father’s manipulative conduct in separating the child from the mother. The Court emphasized the child’s emotional needs during puberty and the mother’s unique role, noting that custody with the mother serves the child’s best interests.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The parties were married in 2013 and had a daughter in 2012. Following irreconcilable differences, the wife filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim custody of the child. The trial court and appellate court initially rejected the mother’s plea, favoring the father’s custody based on the child’s recorded preference. The mother challenged this before the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case:
- Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
- Relevant constitutional provisions ensuring the welfare of the child
- Judgments on child custody including:
- Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu
- Kumar V. Jahgirdar v. Chethara Ramtheertha
- ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent:
Petitioner (Wife):
- Claimed the father deceitfully took custody of the child under the guise of a mall visit.
- Presented SMS and Google Maps data showing the forced nature of her leaving the house.
- Asserted that as a girl entering puberty, the daughter needs her mother for emotional and biological support.
- Pointed out the father’s manipulative conduct and his use of institutional power to alienate the child.
Respondent (Husband):
- Argued the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and the daughter.
- Claimed the child expressed a clear desire to stay with him.
- Highlighted the wife’s alleged emotional instability and past behavior, including accusations of occult practices.
- Contended that the child was safe and thriving under his care with support from grandparents.
Court’s Observations:
- The Court found the father’s version inconsistent and misleading, contradicted by digital evidence and SMS messages.
- The child was taken away from the mother by deceit, not choice.
- The mother’s role was emphasized as crucial during the child’s puberty.
- The presence of domestic helps and elderly grandparents could not substitute maternal care.
- It condemned the father’s conduct as manipulative and possibly obstructive to justice.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
The High Court set aside the lower courts’ orders and granted interim custody of the girl to the mother, directing the father to hand over custody within three days. In case of non-compliance, the Child Welfare Committee and police would intervene. The father was granted liberty to pursue visitation rights legally. Maintenance issues were left to be addressed in separate proceedings.
Comments from the author of this website
The judgment, though rooted in child welfare considerations, reflects a deeply ingrained presumption that a mother is inherently more suitable for custody—especially of a female child—simply by virtue of her gender. This mindset sidelines the evolving realities where fathers are increasingly active, responsible, and emotionally engaged caregivers. The Court acknowledged that the child was living in a safe, supportive environment with her father and had even expressed a desire to stay with him. Yet, it discounted her autonomy and preferences, undermining the principle that a mature child’s voice should be heard meaningfully in custody disputes.
The decision also raises concerns about how allegations—particularly those tied to subjective interpretations of manipulation or intent—can overshadow consistent caregiving and the father’s actual track record. The evidence presented by the mother was taken at face value, while the father’s submissions, including the emotional and psychological trauma allegedly caused by the mother’s behavior, were not subjected to equal scrutiny. This imbalance in evaluation creates a situation where fathers must prove an extraordinary level of innocence or perfection to retain custody, while the burden on mothers is substantially lower.
Moreover, by emphasizing the biological role of the mother during puberty, the judgment inadvertently reinforces outdated gender stereotypes. It dismisses the possibility that a father, especially one raising his daughter alone for two years, might already be providing the emotional and developmental support she needs. Many modern fathers are equipped to understand and guide their children through sensitive stages of life—with the help of resources, counselors, or female family members—yet such adaptability was not given due weight.
The Court also speculated on the father’s alleged use of professional influence without clear evidence of misuse of power. This presumption adds another layer of disadvantage for fathers in custody battles, implying that their professional standing could itself become a point of suspicion, rather than support.
Final Thoughts:
While the intent of the Court to prioritize the child’s welfare is commendable, the process by which it reached this decision reflects a continued asymmetry in how parental roles are perceived and valued. True progress in child custody jurisprudence demands a gender-neutral, evidence-based approach that recognizes caregiving as a function of commitment, stability, and demonstrated affection—not gender. Ensuring that both parents are assessed by the same standards is vital to uphold the fairness and integrity of family law proceedings.
Read Complete Judgement Here