Ram Kumar vs Smt. Asha Kataria

Court
Delhi High Court

$~137
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010496232026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026
RAM KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay,Mr.
Sushil Kumar, Mr Satyam
Kumar Singh, Adv. with
Appellant in person.
versus

SMT. ASHA KATARIA .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)


CM APPL. 71517/2026 & CM APPL. 71518/2026- Delay
1. The present applications have been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking condonation of delay of 85 days in filing
and 21 days in re-filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing and
re-filing the present appeal is condoned.
3. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of as allowed.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026
4. The challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 is to the Judgment dated 15.05.2026
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 Page 1 of 6

21.10.2026 16:16

whereby, the learned Family Court has declined the prayer of the
appellant/grandfather seeking custody of his grandchildren.
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case leading to this
appeal are as under:
a) The appellant is the paternal grandfather of Master
Shantanu Grover and baby Mannat Grover. The appellant’s son
was married to the respondent on 01.11.2006 as per Hindu rites
and customs.

b) Shri Ravinder Grover/son of the appellant passed away
on 01.12.2016 and the grandchildren stayed with the
mother/respondent.
c) The appellant had approached the Family Court under
Section 7, 8, 9, 10 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, seeking custody of his minor grandchildren.
d) It is the case of the appellant that when the marriage of
the appellant’s son with the respondent was solemnized on
01.11.2006, the couple was blessed with two children. The girl
child was born on 07.07.2008 and the boy child on 04.06.2010.
e) The material on record indicates that all was not well
between the couple leading to filing of a FIR being 205/2012
under Section 406/498-A of the IPC at P.S. Maurya Enclave,
Delhi. The FIR was quashed in competent proceedings by this
Court vide order dated 24.05.2013.
f) Further, material on record indicates that the children
were living with their mother.
g) The son of the appellant passed unfortunately passed
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 Page 2 of 6

21.10.2026 16:16

away on 01.12.2016 and it is the case of the appellant that the
respondent is not permitting the children to meet the
grandparents.
6. The appellant states that he wants to impart proper education to
the children since the respondent i.e. the mother of the children is a
working lady, she is not able to take care of both the children and is
not giving proper atmosphere required for the minor children, further
stating that welfare of the children is paramount and that the
grandparents can give much more better and congenial environment,
custody is being sought by the grandfather.
7. Since the respondent did not file the written statement, her right
to file the written statement was stuck off. The appellant examined
himself as PW-1.
8. The impugned order indicates that the Family Court interacted
with the children. The order dated 05.03.2025 observes that the
children for whose custody the present petition has been filed, could
barely recognize the appellant herein and have no desire to have any
contact with the appellant.
9. The children were almost 18 and 15 years of age at that time.
The daughter has already become a major in the month of July, 2026.
It cannot be said that the children at this age have been tutored. The
children have their own independent mind and they have expressed
their desire that they want to continue to live with their mother.
10. There is nothing on record which would indicate that the mother
is not bringing up the children properly. The fact as to whether the
respondent committed cruelty on the appellant’s son is not a matter
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 Page 3 of 6

21.10.2026 16:16

which has to be discussed or decided in the present proceedings under
the Guardians and Wards Act.
11. The respondent is an Income-Tax Officer, financially
independent and having her own accommodation, taking care of the
children.
12. It is well settled that the natural guardian has a superior claim
than grandparents. The right of the mother who is the natural guardian
to her children would have a better right to the custody of the children
and takes precedence over others, unless and until the Court is
satisfied that the mother is unfit, incapable or has been negligent for
the custody of the children. The respondent/mother cannot be deprived
of the children and the children cannot be deprived of their mother.
13. In Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi &Anr. v. State of U.P. &Ors. ,
(2025) 4 SCC 342, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a
father’s claim for custody of his minor child vis-à-vis the maternal
grandparents, observed in paragraph 9 that the grandparents could not
have a better claim than the father, who was the natural guardian. The
Court, upon finding no circumstances disentitling the father from
exercising his parental rights, held that the welfare of the child, in the
facts of that case, would be best served by granting custody to the
father. The decision thus reiterates that, while the welfare of the minor
remains the paramount consideration, the claim of a natural guardian
cannot be displaced merely because the child has been residing with
the grandparents. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below-
“9. We cannot but observe that the learned
Single Judge has not endeavoured to elicit the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 Page 4 of 6

21.10.2026 16:16

child's attitude towards his father. Admittedly,
the child, after his birth, was with his parents
for about 10 years till the death of his mother.
He was separated from the father in 2021 and
has been living with his grandparents, who
cannot have a better claim than the father,
who is the natural guardian. There is no
allegation of any matrimonial dispute when
the mother of the child was alive nor a
complaint of abuse perpetrated against the
wife or son. The father, the natural guardian,
we reiterate, is well employed and educated
and there is nothing standing against his legal
rights; as a natural guardian, and legitimate
desire to have the custody of his child. We are
of the opinion that the welfare of the child, in
the facts and circumstances of this case, would
be best served if custody is given to the father.
14. In view of the fact that the Family Court had interacted with the
children who were 17 and 14 years of age at the time of passing of the
impugned Order are capable of rational thinking and the daughter has
already attained majority, the decision of the Family Court in not
awarding custody to the grandparents does not require any
interference.
15. After attaining majority, it is always open for the granddaughter
if she wishes to, she can visit the grandparents. The Court in any event
cannot force either the grandchild to meet their grandparents or
restrain her from meeting their grandparents.
16. However, it is always open to the appellant herein to move
appropriate application before the Family Court for the purposes of
visitation rights, which shall be considered by the Family Court on its
own merits after eliciting the willingness of the grandchildren.
17. The order of the Family Court is well reasoned. Accordingly,
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 Page 5 of 6

21.10.2026 16:16

the appeal stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.


SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026 / pr/ KZ

Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 Page 6 of 6

21.10.2026 16:16