After Mother’s Death, Patna HC Upholds Father’s Interim Custody, Citing No Material Showing Him Unfit

The petitioner, the minor child’s maternal grandmother, sought custody after her daughter, the child’s mother, died in circumstances alleged to involve dowry harassment and poisoning by the respondent, the child’s father.

She instituted Guardianship Case No. 51 of 2025.

During its pendency, the Family Court granted the father interim custody, finding no material indicating his unfitness and providing visitation and communication rights to the grandmother.

The grandmother challenged that order in this civil miscellaneous petition.

The respondent stated that the criminal investigation had resulted in a final form, which the court accepted; the petitioner did not rebut that submission.

In custody matters, the child’s welfare and best interests are paramount; the legal rights of the parties do not displace that consideration.

The father, as a surviving natural parent, has a relevant claim to custody, but that claim is not conclusive and must yield to the child’s welfare.

The Court relied on Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv Baijal, (2009) 7 SCC 322, which states that a father’s guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 does not decide custody independently of the child’s welfare.

It also referred to Bimla Devi v. Subhash Chandra Yadav ‘Nirala’, 1990 SCC OnLine Pat 253.

The High Court considered that the Family Court had interacted with the child and assessed the child’s circumstances, including the grandmother’s care and emotional bond with him.

It accepted the Family Court’s view that, absent material indicating the father’s unfitness, interim custody could remain with him while the guardianship case was pending; the grandmother’s relationship with the child was to be preserved through visitation and regular communication.

The alleged poisoning did not, on the record before the Court, justify disturbing the interim arrangement, particularly as the respondent’s submission concerning the accepted final form was unrebutted.

The High Court therefore found no illegality or impropriety in the order.

The parties were directed to comply with the Family Court’s directions, including the grandmother’s visitation and communication rights.