A minor’s expressed preference and welfare justify granting permanent custody to the mother.

The petitioner, the child’s mother, sought permanent custody of her son, born on 10 July 2020, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

She alleged that the respondent, her husband, had subjected her to abuse, driven her from the matrimonial home, and prevented her from meeting the child.

She also alleged that the respondent had mistreated the child.

The respondent did not appear despite publication and was set ex parte.

The petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P1–P7.

The Court interacted with the child, who expressed a preference to live with his mother.

Whether permanent custody of the minor child should be granted to the petitioner, having regard to the child’s welfare and best interests.

Whether the child’s expressed preference to live with the petitioner supported granting her custody.

The petition invoked Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with Order XXI Rules 2 and 3 of the High Court Original Side Rules.

The Court stated that the welfare and best interests of the minor child were paramount in determining custody.

It also considered the child’s stated preference following its interaction with him.

The judgment cited no precedent or further statutory test.

The Court considered the petitioner’s account of the respondent’s alleged conduct and her submissions concerning the child’s care and welfare.

The respondent’s non-appearance left the petitioner’s evidence unrebutted.

The child expressed to the Court that he wished to stay with his mother, and the Court treated that preference as supporting her application.

On that basis, and having regard to the child’s welfare and best interests, the Court granted the petition.