After interacting with the child, Supreme Court shifts custody from father to maternal grandparents, allows only supervised visits

The petitioner, the maternal grandfather of a minor child, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier custody directions in Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2025.

The child’s mother, the petitioner’s daughter, had died, and the maternal grandparents had been caring for the child.

Relying on the father’s status as the natural guardian and precedents permitting custody proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court had earlier directed that custody remain with the grandparents until 30 April 2025, while allowing the father structured access and familiarisation with the child.

From 1 May 2025, custody was to be handed over to the father, with the grandparents receiving visitation rights every second Saturday.

The grandparents alleged that the child was never sent to them, while the father contended that they had not come to collect the child; the father had also subsequently moved to another location due to a transfer.

After directing production of the child, the Court interacted with the child and concluded that the child’s welfare would best be served by being cared for by the maternal grandparents.

1. Whether, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, the Court could reconsider and modify the child-custody arrangement in light of the child’s welfare after interacting with the child.

2. Whether custody of the minor child should be restored to the maternal grandparents rather than continued with the father, having regard to the overall circumstances and the child’s best interests.

3. What visitation and maintenance-related directions should govern the relationship between the child, the father, and the maternal grandparents.

The Court applied the constitutional and welfare-oriented principles governing child custody, including the Court’s power to consider custody under Article 226 of the Constitution where invoked by the father as the natural guardian.

The controlling consideration in custody matters is the welfare and best interests of the child, and the Court may exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to protect those interests even in proceedings technically instituted for contempt.

The Court also relied on the earlier custody directions, which had structured the child’s transition to the father and preserved visitation rights for the maternal grandparents.

No specific statutory provision or precedent is identified by name in the order.

The Court treated the child’s welfare as overriding the procedural posture of the contempt petition.

Although the earlier order had transferred custody to the father and provided visitation rights to the grandparents, the alleged non-compliance, the changed circumstances following the father’s transfer, and, most significantly, the Court’s direct interaction with the child led it to reassess the arrangement.

On its assessment of the child’s interests and the grandparents’ existing caregiving role, the Court concluded that custody with the grandparents would better serve the child’s welfare.

It therefore invoked parens patriae jurisdiction notwithstanding that the proceeding was formally one for contempt.

The Court further considered the need to preserve the father’s relationship with the child while ensuring that contact would occur only after the child developed confidence and, if the child desired it, under supervision.

The maternal uncle was permitted to take the child from the Court.

The grandparents were left free to pursue maintenance in accordance with law.

The father may seek visitation once every three months, but only if the child desires it and subject to strict supervision by the grandparents or maternal uncles.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.