01Facts
The appellant-father sought permanent custody of the parties’ twin children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
pp. 2–5The respondent-mother opposed the petition, alleging that the appellant had contracted another marriage and had failed to pay court-ordered maintenance.
pp. 2–5The Family Court dismissed the petition.
pp. 2–5On appeal under Section 47 of the Act, the High Court considered the appellant’s request for custody and the respondent’s opposition
pp. 2–5The appellant admitted that he had not made efforts to learn which school or class the children were in, had not established contact with them for more than five years, and had produced no material showing that he had contributed to their maintenance or education
pp. 10–1202Issues
i.1. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the father’s petition for permanent custody warranted appellate interference
p. 8ii.2. Whether the father should be granted visitation rights notwithstanding the refusal of permanent custody
pp. 12–1303Law Applied
The Court considered Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, under which the father had sought custody, and Section 47, under which the appeal was brought
p. 2, 8The Court’s reasoning treated the children’s welfare and care, together with the evidence of each parent’s involvement, as relevant to custody.
pp. 10–13It also recognised that the children were entitled to the love and affection of both parents
pp. 10–13Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 47Section 25
04Reasoning
The appellant’s employment and ability to meet the children’s expenses did not, by themselves, establish that transferring custody would serve their interests.
pp. 9–12His prolonged lack of contact, failure to ascertain the children’s school and class, and absence of evidence that he had supported their maintenance or education undermined his claim for permanent custody
pp. 9–12However, the Court considered that the children should have an opportunity to share their father’s love and affection, and therefore granted visitation rather than permanent custody
pp. 12–1305Holding
The appeal was allowed in part.
pp. 13–14The Court declined to grant the father permanent custody but modified the Family Court’s order to give him visitation rights on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
pp. 13–14The mother was directed to permit him to take the children out during those hours and to return them to her in the evening
pp. 13–14Original Court PDF
SRI MOHAMMED ALTAF HUSSAINvsSMT AYESHA BEGUM
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
