Maternal Custody of Child Under Five Maintained Despite Territorial Jurisdiction Challenges and Mother’s Professional Employment

The petitioner (mother), an Environmental Engineer working in Mumbai, filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking custody of her 3½-year-old son, Rudra Parashar, from respondent no. 4 (father), a World Bank employee

The petitioner alleged the child was forcibly taken from her custody in Ghaziabad on April 3, 2026

Evidence, including school records and police station compromise proceedings dated May 15, 2026, indicated the child resided in Ghaziabad prior to the dispute

The respondent challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, asserting the child was in his custody in Faridabad

Following a court interaction, the minor child exhibited a strong emotional bond and a preference for the mother

The court applied Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to exercise jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arises within its territories

Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which mandates that the custody of a minor below five years of age shall ordinarily be with the mother

The court also applied the doctrine of "Paramount Welfare of the Child" as the determinative factor in custody battles

Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 329 regarding the accrual of cause of action for territorial jurisdiction

The Court determined it possessed territorial jurisdiction because the child had been enrolled in a school in Ghaziabad and was allegedly taken from there, meaning a significant part of the "cause of action" arose within Uttar Pradesh

Regarding custody, the Court observed that under Section 6(a), the mother is the natural guardian for a child under five unless disqualified. Finding no evidence of her unfitness and noting her financial stability (earning Rs. 80,000/month) and parental support, the Court prioritized her statutory right.

Crucially, the Court’s physical interaction with the 3½-year-old revealed a deep emotional attachment and a sense of security with the mother, which outweighed the father’s higher financial status (Rs. 4.5 lakhs/month), as the child’s emotional welfare was deemed paramount

The petition was disposed of with a direction to hand over the corpus to the petitioner immediately. The Court granted respondent no. 4 visitation rights and video conferencing access, allowed him temporary custody during school vacations, and restrained both parties from taking the child out of India.