Kerala High Court prioritizes child welfare: keeping Parens Patriae jurisdiction in focus.
Case title: Dr. Athulya Asok Vs. The State Police Chief and Ors.
Case No.: WP(CRL.) NO. 163 OF 2024
Decided on: 04.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice G Girish.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case revolves around a custody dispute concerning a child whose father has passed away. The child, a student at GEMS Millennium School in Sharjah, displayed maturity beyond his age and expressed a strong preference to live with his uncle, aunt, and cousin due to emotional distress caused by his mother’s negative remarks about his deceased father. The court considered the child’s emotional well-being paramount and his preference for a conducive environment for his studies. The case involves habeas corpus proceedings to determine the child’s custody, emphasizing the child’s welfare and preferences over legal rights of the parties involved.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Habeas Corpus: The case involves a writ of habeas corpus, a legal action that requires a person under arrest or detention to be brought before a court or judge. It is used to determine the legality of the custody of a child and ensure their well-being.
Guardians and Wards Act: The provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act were considered in the context of child custody. However, in a writ of habeas corpus, these provisions do not stand in the way of determining the custody of the child.
Hindu Marriage Act: The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act were also mentioned, indicating that decrees passed under this act do not necessarily impact the determination of child custody in a writ of habeas corpus.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant, who is the mother of the child involved in the custody dispute, contended that she should be granted custody as she believed she was better equipped to provide care for the child compared to the uncle and aunt seeking custody. She argued that the child residing with the relatives in Dubai was unlawful, citing a violation of a court order issued in a previous Family Court case. The appellant’s legal representative emphasized that the child’s welfare and best interests would be better served under the mother’s care, highlighting the importance of maternal nurturing and affection in the child’s upbringing.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, who are the uncle, aunt, and cousin of the child involved in the custody dispute, argued against granting custody to the mother. They contended that the child’s emotional well-being and preferences should be prioritized over legal technicalities. The respondents highlighted the child’s strong emotional attachment to his deceased father and the distress caused by the mother’s negative remarks about him. They emphasized that the child expressed a clear desire to continue living with them in a conducive environment for His studies in Sharjah. The respondents also pointed out that the child’s psychological well-being and comfort were better ensured in their care, as indicated by the report of the Consultant Psychologist from the Family Counselling Centre.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court conducted a detailed analysis of the custody dispute, considering the child’s well-being as the paramount factor. It noted the child’s preference to stay with his uncle, aunt, and cousin in Dubai due to emotional distress caused by his mother’s behavior towards his deceased father. The court prioritized the child’s welfare, considering his preference to stay with his uncle, aunt, and cousin in Dubai due to emotional distress caused by the mother’s behavior. The child’s well-being and best interests were deemed crucial in determining custody. The court emphasized that the legal rights of the parties should not overshadow the child’s best interests, as determined by the principle of parens patriae jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the request for custody could not be entertained in that petition. The court clarified that its observations would not bind a court of competent jurisdiction handling the issue of guardianship in a proper proceeding under the relevant personal law.
“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.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava