Category Archives: indian child custody

Indian SC shows its lack of understanding child welfare once again

Indian SC asks a 7 yr. old minor who has been fatherless for over an year and likely being brainwashed if she wants to stay with mother or father to decide custody. Is this OUTRAGEOUS or what? In the process the SC overturned both US and Calcutta HC orders. WAY TO GO SC…!!!!!!!!!

Does the judiciary realize that putting a child in a situation where she has to choose between her parents is insane?

Does the judiciary realize that children too have survival instincts and in cases of parental alienation will always do whatever it takes to please the alienating parent even if that means deriding/abusing/abhorring the left behind parent?

Does the judiciary realize that its prime goal is to rule keeping in mind the welfare of the child and that children are not always the best judge of their welfare, especially minors and alienated children?



When Mommy wants her Children, it is different

WOW is all i could say when i read this case. Father detains children in India, Mommy comes back to US and files a habeaus corpus petition in Kerala HC. Kerala HC orders father to return US citizen children to Mom in Texas until a court in Texas rules on custody because Texas is the right jurisdiction. WOW is all I can say….WHY

Reverse the genders in this situation and you get my story. I too filed a Habeaus Corpus in Delhi HC which was dismissed by a vague one line order (“it does not lie here, hence dismissed”) and currently I am appealing in SC and none of the judges seem to be taking the tack that this Kerala HC judge took in this case. WHY? BECAUSE I AM DADDY, I AM A MAN!!!!!

read the Kerala HC judgement here

Jahgirdar, Kumble and their wife: Is anyone thinking about the little girl?

Many have seen this case in the media over the years and followed it. However we may not have looked at it in its entirety

This case fascinates me because it seems to be a classic example of the stupidity of parents (in this case it seems the stupidity was initiated by the mom) who cannot rise above the pettiness of their squibbles over the child in the best interests of the child. It is also an example where the parents started out very rationally and logically but then things went downhill from there. This case is also a classic example where the child was a football, treated as such not only by the parents but also by the courts. It also seems to be an example where as far as custody of daughter is concerned, a woman does not need to resort to false allegations, helping daughter grow up during puberty is enough. Finally i think this case clearly shows that parents should not expect the courts to sort out their family problems for them but try their best to work out solutions themselves. Unfortunately divorce destroys the mind of both parents and they cannot talk and reason rationally with each other any more. This case also shows that Indian courts and law do not give two hoots about joint custody, the LAWS NEED TO CHANGE. In this particular case an order of joint custody was challenged and overturned in a very short period of time and this violation of justice never came up in any of the SC proceedings at all.

I have attached the relevant judgements here but here is a summary that proves my above points

1. Marriage dissolved by mutual consent in 1999

2. Both parents agree to be joint guardians and custodians with child shifting alternate weeks between both parents — STARTED OUT REALLY WELL, NO FALSE ALLEGATIONS

3. Mommy soon after marries Anil Kumble and starts filing in family court for permanent custody and for taking child abroad, possibly for cricket matches — WHAT HAPPENED, AGREES IN APRIL 1999 FOR JOINT AND IN A FEW MONTHS FILES FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY??

4. Family court agrees for child being taken abroad with certain conditions but does not change custody decree

5. Mom challenges family court order in HC who gives custody for one year to mom and visitation to Dad Jahgirdar–THIS IS WHEN THINGS START GOING DOWNHILL…..DID THE HC REALIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF MODIFYING THE CUSTODY ORDER ON DAD?

6. Jahgirdar and mom each file for sole custody in family court and appeals HC order in Supreme court

7. In April 2001, SC decides not to overturn HC judgement, orders family court to decide expeditiously in 4 months and orders family court to not be influenced by the HC order which SC was not convinced was in the best interests of the child–IF SO WHY DID SC NOT OVERTURN IT, DOES IT EXPECT THE FAMILY COURT TO OVERTURN THE JUDGEMENT OF A HIGHER COURT?? DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

8. Family court in April 2002 gives custody to dad and visitation rights to mommy

9. In dec 2002 HC on appeal by mom gave custody to mom and visitation rights to dad

10. Dad appealed in SC again, In Jan 2004, SC did not overrule HC and felt that since child was near puberty being with mom was best. It however said that when mommy traveled abroad, child should stay with father.

11. Since then father has been fighting for custody in family courts.

12. In 2007 something happened during a visitation which led to the daughter filing a police complaint against the dad Jahgirdar (dad claims it is a false complaint) apprehending a threat to her life. read the news article here

13. Further the wife got a stay from the HC against permanent custody proceedings initiated by father in family court on the grounds of this being a mischevious application designed to disturb custody of the child. read the news article here




Child’s wishes considered paramount by SC India

Paediatrician mommy kidnaps children but child tells judge she wants to stay with father. Lower courts grant custody to dad, mommy fights all the way to the Supreme court, tries to use all kinds of arguments (e.g. woman needed during puberty stage of child, parental alienation has made child say that she does not want to stay w/ mommy etc) but to no avail. Two key points in this case

1. child stated wish to stay w/ father

2. mom had not made any damaging allegations against father of child abuse

read judgement here

Hero Father gets custody after 5 years of battle in India

Congratulations to this hero father for not only getting custody of his children in their best interests but also for continuing to fight

He has lost more than 5 years with them which even the Good Lord cannot return but he has saved these innocent souls from the devastation they would have faced with their unfit mother

He has allowed the mother to have unrestricted visits with the children, hopefully he will monitor those and make them supervised to prevent further child abuse.

This is also a good case that shows the reasoned approach taken by the judge in the best interests of the child without exhibiting any form of gender bias

Read the judgement here

Abhorrence towards father is result of brainwashing, Delhi HC rules


CRP No.276/2003

Date of Hearing : March 15, 2004.
Date of Decision: April 12, 2004.

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 -Custody of the Minor Child

Paramjit Singh Lamba …Petitioner

through Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate


Smt. Prabjot Kaur …Respondent

through Mr. K. Sultan Singh

with Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates



1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes


1. This Revision brings to the surface an important question which
universally affects and afflicts all persons belonging to a broken
home, viz. the custody of the minor child of the two warring spouses.
It cannot be over-emphasised that the paramount consideration in all
such situations is the well-being of the child. It is this aspect
which must be kept in focus and the individual `rights’ of the
parents would recede into the shadows. It is but a human frailty for
the Judge to be prejudiced by the reproachable and unbecoming conduct
of a particular spouse while determining the manner in which the
child’s time is to be apportioned. It has been noticed that the
Guardian Judge does not follow a uniform practice in this regard in
that sometimes the parent who does not have the custody of the child
is granted a meeting of a duration of one or two hours in a month,
that too in the uncomfortable and uncongenial environment of the
Court, while in other cases weekly visitation or access for several
hours is ordered. It is trite to state, but necessary to reiterate,
that it is the welfare of the child which must be kept in the fore,
either while granting custody or visitation to the parent who does
not have the custody. It must also be highlighted that orders of this
genre are inherently interlocutory in nature, subject to modification
from time to time. It is not essential that the Court accepts consent
terms presented to it by the parents. The Court is also not powerless
to cancel or modify an arrangement approved by it earlier, if change
in circumstances so compel.

2. The Statute proclaims the father to be the natural guardian of the
child but clarifies that till he/she attains the age of five years,
his/her custody would ordinarily be granted to the mother. The
Legislature merely recognises the universal experience and
observation that the mother is better equipped and inclined in
bringing-up the children. Homo sapiens are the most advanced and
intelligent species but there is some commonality with other animals
amongst whom it is ubiquitously the mother which cares for the
offspring upto adolescence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, has
clarified in Kumar V. Jahgirdar vs. Chethana Ramatheertha, 2004(1)
Scale 149 that it does not subscribe to the observations that a
mother is always preferable to the father so far as the custody of
the child is concerned. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found
that the child had not been brainwashed in the case before it, it was
expressly aware of the reality that the child’s mind is invariably
poisoned against the other parent. Such a practice must be
unreservedly deprecated, as it is wholly deleterious to the welfare
of the child concerned and to the development of the personality.
Every child requires exposure to and influence of both his parents.
Visitation in Court precincts should be resorted to where there is no
other option, or where the conduct of a parent is deviant or
unnatural thereby necessitating jural monitoring.

3. In the present case the Father has for various reasons, which I
need not discuss threadbare, not had much interaction with his
daughter. It has been explained that he was pursuing studies in the
United States of America during the infancy of his daughter.
Visitation between 3:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. on the last Saturday of the
month, in the Court precincts, appears to have been granted on
23.3.2001. The present Additional District Judge has taken an adverse
view of the fact that the Father did not assail the previous Order in
an Appeal or Revision. In my considered view, however, it would be
inappropriate to give a critical weightage to this fact. Assuming
that a parent was uncaring at a particular stage in the child’s life,
he/she should not be shut out for all times to come. As already
observed a decision should be taken not from the claim of the parent,
but from the standpoint of the child concerned, since there can be no
argument against the necessity for the child to spend time with both
parents. In the present case the fixation of only one hour in a month
has led to the consequence of the child refusing to meet her Father,
that is, the Petitioner herein. Such an abhorrence towards the Father
cannot but be the result of brainwashing by the Mother, which has
succeeded in large measure because of the extremely limited access of
the Petitioner with his daughter.

4. So far as the interests of the child are concerned it is
imperative that a meaningful exposure to both parents should be
ordained by the Court. One hour every month is clearly counter-
productive for the achievement of this objective, as this case
palpably manifests. The Court should endeavour to make a weekly
meeting possible and only insist that this should be in the Court
precincts where no other alternative is possible. It is only in rare
cases that such a location should be prescribed. The duration of the
meeting should be fixed so as to enable a healthy interaction between
the parent and child, and should not be reduced to a mere legal
formality. There is also no reason why a shorter visitation, say for
one hour, should also not be ordered on a week day so that there is
constant contact between the child and the parent. This may be
onerous or awkward for the parent who has custody, but in a
dismembered family, it cannot be avoided. The parents will eventually
evolve a system and develop a pragmatic and healthy attitude where
their lives continue in the smoothest manner possible even in such
adverse and unfortunate circumstances.

5. In the impugned Order the Additional District Judge has
understandably noted and has been adversely influenced by the fact
that the application for a change in the interim arrangement and for
custody of the child had been presented by the Father only on the
filing of the Petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. This is also a reality, but the bluff of the parent filing such
an application can be countered by allowing access/visitation rights
to the child which the uninterested parent would eventually not fully
avail of. In such a case the parent would run the danger not only of
alienating the child forever, but also creating an occasion for
modification in the duration of child access.

6. I would allow the present Revision by increasing the access of the
Father to one hour every week, in the first instance. Since it is
evident that the daughter is presently inimical towards meeting her
Father, it is expected of the Respondent that she should create a
congenial atmosphere which would obviate the meeting/visitation to be
held in the Court of the Matrimonial/ Guardian Judge. If avoidable
bickering does not end, the parents would end up wasting the better
part of their lives in Court, and this should soon bring them to
their senses. Their folly, however, is no justification for not
endeavouring to achieve the best for the unfortunate child, who has
no role or say in the spousal spat.

7. The place of the weekly meeting is left to the Matrimonial/
Guardian Judge to determine. As has been observed, it is for the
Mother to ensure that the Daughter has a healthy interaction with her
Father, lest an opinion be formed that she is deliberately turning
the Daughter against her Father. If such an opinion is formed by the
Court, there would be no option available to the Court but to
award/transfer the custody to the Father in the hope that with the
change the child would adopt a more balanced and healthy attitude
towards both her parents. My faith that Counsel for the parties shall
both advise and assist in bringing about some sanity in their
respective clients will, I turst, not be in vain.

8. The Petition is disposed of with these observations. Parties to
appear before the Additional District Judge on 21st April, 2004.

April 12, 2004