Custody of child – Disputed questions of fact as to who was in a better position to take care of the minor child, the parties were free to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances [PLRonline 403505]

LogIn for full text and Judgment

Hindu  Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 S. 6(a)  – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890  – Mother claimed custody of a child from the father – Held that the custody of the father could not be said to be illegal and therefore as there were disputed questions of fact as to who was in a better position to take care of the minor child, the parties were free to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances – Custody of child.

Held, Taking into consideration the provisions of law and the factual matrix which is disputed, I am of the opinion that custody of the father as a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful and therefore, it would not be appropriate to issue a writ of habeas corpus in favour of the petitioner. In the case of disputed questions of facts, it is a matter of evidence to be led by both the parties as to which party will be in a better position to take care of the minor child which is concededly the paramount consideration. [Para 28]