{"id":7135,"date":"2026-04-24T17:58:44","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T12:28:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=7135"},"modified":"2026-04-24T17:55:52","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T12:25:52","slug":"child-custody-denied-mother-pg-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/child-custody-denied-mother-pg-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Child Custody Denied To Mother As She Is Living In PG: Punjab & Haryana HC Declares Father As Child’s Primary Caregiver"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the father\u2019s custody after finding that the mother failed to clearly explain who would care for the child and how the child would be managed if custody was handed over to her.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Punjab & Haryana High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill<\/strong> and Justice Ramesh Kumari<\/strong>, delivered an important child custody<\/strong> judgment. The Court held that custody cases must be decided on the basis of the child\u2019s welfare<\/strong>, not on the old thinking that mothers must always get custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mother had challenged the Family Court order and sought full custody of the minor son. However, the High Court found that she was living in a paying guest accommodation<\/strong>, was working full time, and had not clearly explained who would take care of the child during office hours.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court noted that the father was living with family members in a larger house and the child was already staying in that stable environment<\/strong> with support available for daily care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While refusing to disturb custody, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Lahari Sakhamuri vs Sobhan Kodali<\/em><\/strong> and quoted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe expression \u2018best interest of the child\u2019 which is always kept to be of paramount consideration…\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The High Court said this means custody cannot be decided only because the child is of tender age<\/strong>. Real welfare includes emotional growth, safety, education and proper upbringing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also agreed with the trial court finding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cShe has not apprised the Court as how she is going to keep the child in case, the custody of the child is granted to her.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This became an important reason for denying full custody to the mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, the Court supported shared parenting<\/strong> and increased the mother\u2019s visitation rights<\/strong>. She was allowed overnight custody three times every month from Saturday to Sunday.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Methew vs Rajesh Kumar<\/em><\/strong> and reminded both parents:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBefore parting with the judgment, we find it relevant to remind both the parents of their primary responsibility towards child’s nurturing…\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This ruling is important because it recognizes that fathers are equal parents<\/strong>. If a father provides stability, support and better surroundings<\/strong>, courts can lawfully keep custody with him instead of following gender stereotypes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>Purpose<\/strong><\/td>How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 7, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/strong><\/td>Gives court power to appoint guardian of a minor child when required<\/td>Mother filed custody petition seeking guardianship\/custody orders<\/td><\/tr>
Section 9, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/strong><\/td>Decides which court has territorial jurisdiction to hear guardianship matters<\/td>Case was filed before competent Family Court at Gurugram<\/td><\/tr>
Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/strong><\/td>Allows guardian to seek custody or return of child from another person<\/td>Used by mother to seek custody of minor child<\/td><\/tr>
Section 6, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/strong><\/td>Defines natural guardians of Hindu minor child<\/td>Considered while examining parental rights and custody claim<\/td><\/tr>
Section 97, Code of Criminal Procedure<\/strong><\/td>Allows magistrate to issue search warrant for person wrongfully confined<\/td>Mother approached SDM seeking recovery of child<\/td><\/tr>
Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Provides right to seek interim reliefs and protection orders<\/td>Mother had filed related domestic violence proceedings<\/td><\/tr>
Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Governs admissibility of electronic evidence like chats, recordings, digital data<\/td>Parties relied on WhatsApp chats, call recordings and electronic documents<\/td><\/tr>
Section 2(9), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015<\/strong><\/td>Defines \u201cbest interest of the child\u201d<\/td>Court relied on this welfare principle through Supreme Court precedents while deciding custody<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n