Delhi HC Upholds Mother’s Custody After Grandchildren Tell Family Court They Want to Stay With Her; Grandfather Showed No Evidence She Was Unfit

The appellant, the paternal grandfather of two children, sought their custody under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, after his son—the children’s father—died in 2016.

The children had remained with their mother, the respondent.

The grandfather alleged that she was unable to provide proper care and sought custody on the ground that their welfare would be better served with him.

The Family Court dismissed the petition.

It had interacted with the children, who could barely recognise the grandfather and did not wish to have contact with him.

The mother did not file a written statement, and her right to do so was struck off; the grandfather testified as PW-1.

The grandfather appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.

Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to grant custody of the grandchildren to their paternal grandfather, having regard to their welfare, the mother’s status as their natural guardian, and the children’s expressed wishes.

Whether the grandfather should be granted visitation rights, and whether such contact could be directed without ascertaining the grandchildren’s willingness.

Under the Guardians and Wards Act, the child’s welfare is paramount in determining custody.

A natural guardian’s claim is not displaced in favour of grandparents absent circumstances showing that the natural guardian is unfit, incapable or negligent.

The Court relied on Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2025) 4 SCC 342, which held that grandparents do not have a better claim to custody than a natural guardian where no circumstances disentitle the guardian, while reaffirming that the child’s welfare governs the decision.

The wishes of sufficiently mature children are relevant to the custody and visitation assessment.

The High Court found no material indicating that the mother was bringing up the children improperly.

She was financially independent, employed as an Income-Tax Officer, had her own accommodation, and was caring for them; the grandfather’s allegations did not establish that she was unfit, incapable or negligent.

The children were of an age to express an independent preference, and they wished to continue living with their mother; the Court considered it could not be said that they had been tutored.

Applying the welfare principle and the natural guardian’s superior claim in the absence of disqualifying circumstances, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Family Court’s decision.

As to visitation, the Court held that it could not compel the grandchildren to meet their grandparents and left any application for visitation to be considered on its merits after eliciting the grandchildren’s willingness.

The Court left open the grandfather’s right to apply to the Family Court for visitation, to be considered on its merits and in light of the grandchildren’s willingness.

Pending applications were disposed of.