Blog

 Case Title: Tirpat Singh Bansal v. Jagwant Kaur 

Date of Decision: September 26, 2023 

Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 32/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna 

 

Facts 

   

• The appellant, Tirpat Singh Bansal, challenged an order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court, Delhi, in a case titled “Jagwant Kaur vs. Tirpat Singh Bansal.” The order granted interim custody of their minor daughter to the respondent-wife, Jagwant Kaur.  
• The parties were married on 01.11.2017, and they had a daughter born on 08.01.2019.  

• The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife, a geologist with the Geological Survey of India, had a demanding work schedule, which led to their separation. He claimed that she left the child with him and subsequently wanted a divorce and custody of the child.  
• Various legal proceedings were initiated, including guardianship petitions, virtual visitation orders, and interim custody orders. 

 

Issues 

   

1. Whether the Family Court’s order granting interim custody of the minor child to the respondent-wife was correct? 
2. How should the visitation rights of the appellant-husband be determined for the welfare of the child?

 

Contentions 

 

• The appellant alleges that the respondent-wife, who works as a geologist, often travels to remote areas for work, making it difficult for her to provide proper care and education to the child. He claims that he is better equipped to care for the child as he works from home. The appellant also asserts that he has borne all the expenses related to the child’s upbringing. 
• The respondent-wife, on the other hand, argues that she should be granted custody based on Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, which typically favors the mother’s custody for children under the age of five. She states that she has been the primary caregiver since the child’s birth and that her work commitments should not be held against her. She also points out that she has good financial stability and access to medical facilities. 

 

Observation of the Court 

 

The court observed that the primary consideration in such cases is the welfare of the child. It noted that the child had been in the custody of her mother since birth, with brief exceptions due to official obligations. The court also discussed the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and cited relevant Supreme Court precedent in the case of Githa Hariharan Vs. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228 regarding the definition of “natural guardian.” 

 

Legal Principles Applied 

   

• Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, stipulates that the interim custody of a child below the age of five years should ordinarily be with the mother.  

• The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes.  
• Courts may consider deviating from the mother’s custody only for strong reasons, and it can be replaced by another guardian if it is in the child’s best interest. 

 

Decision of the Court 

 

The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant interim custody to the respondent-wife, considering the child’s age, the mother’s capability, and the fact that the child had been primarily in her care. The court modified the visitation rights of the appellant-husband to ensure the child’s welfare. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment