Natural Mother Cannot Be Completely Excluded from Access to Minor Child Through Interlocutory Injunction

In brief

The question

1. Whether an interlocutory order of injunction can be passed to completely exclude a natural mother from access to her minor child without evidence of unfitness or risk

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the common order dated 12.01.2026

It also directed

It held that the injunction restraining the mother from access to the minor child was legally unsustainable and vacated it

The Court clarified that while the injunction was vacated to restore maternal access, the final determination of permanent custody, visitation, and guardianship remains subject to a full-fledged trial by the Family Court, which must proceed uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment

All other pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of the minor child, Ms. Riya

p. 4

Following the death of the child's father, Mr. Amit Banerji, in January 2025, disputes arose over the estate

p. 7

The respondents (paternal grandmother and aunt) filed a petition under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act (G&WC No. 15010/2025) seeking guardianship and custody

p. 8

The Family Court, via a common order dated 12.01.2026, allowed the respondents' injunction and dismissed the mother's application (I.A. No. V) to vacate the stay, effectively barring the mother from any access to her child until the completion of school examinations in 2026

p. 13, 20

The mother challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution

p. 2, 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether an interlocutory order of injunction can be passed to completely exclude a natural mother from access to her minor child without evidence of unfitness or risk

p. 19

ii.2. Whether the "welfare of the child" principle justifies a blanket denial of maternal visitation at the interim stage based solely on academic schedules

p. 20

iii.3. Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court under the Guardian and Wards Act

p. 23

03Law Applied

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which recognizes the mother as the natural guardian after the father

p. 19

The "paramount consideration of the welfare of the child" principle as established in Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (AIR 2017 SC 929), emphasizing that parental alienation is detrimental to a child’s development

p. 14, 21

The principles of G. Prabhudev v. Ranganayaki regarding the holistic assessment of a child's needs

p. 14, 22

T. Tirumala Reddy v. APSEB Engineers Association regarding the incidental powers of the court to grant interim relief while staying within interlocutory limits

p. 14, 15, 22

Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 7 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 17 Section 25

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 6 Section 13

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 2 Section 96 Section 104 Section 39 Section 43

04Reasoning

The High Court held that while Family Courts have the power to grant interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, such power must be exercised judiciously

p. 18

The court reasoned that in a dispute between a natural parent and other relatives, the natural guardian’s rights under Section 6 of the 1956 Act cannot be diluted at the interlocutory stage unless there is a prima facie finding of unfitness or imminent risk

p. 19

The court observed that the Family Court erred by placing undue weight on the child's interview, as the child had been in the exclusive custody of the respondents for seven months, creating a risk of tutoring and "parental alienation"

p. 12, 21

Furthermore, the court found that "academic stability" might justify regulating visitation but could never justify the total exclusion of a mother, which causes "irreversible emotional consequences"

p. 20, 22

The court concluded that the requirements of a prima facie case and balance of convenience were not met by the respondents

p. 21