Child Welfare Paramount: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Custody Of Two Minor Daughters With Mother

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a Family court order granting custody of two minor daughters to their mother, observing that the welfare of the children must remain the paramount consideration while deciding custody disputes between estranged parents.

The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi refused to interfere with the findings of the Family court at Mandsaur, which had concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the children to shift their custody to the father.

The order came in a miscellaneous appeal filed by Vasudev Dangi under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, challenging a January 19, 2026 decision of the Principal judge, Family court, Mandsaur. The Family court had rejected his plea under Section 7 of the Act seeking custody of his two daughters, who are presently living with their mother.

According to the case record, the parties were married in 2010 according to Hindu rites and have two daughters from the marriage who are presently about ten and six years old. The children have been residing with the mother after disputes arose between the couple. Before the Family court, the mother alleged that the husband subjected her to cruelty because he wanted a male child and was unhappy that both children were girls.

The mother also alleged that the husband had developed illicit relations with another woman, which further strained the marriage. These allegations were placed before the Family court during the custody proceedings. After recording evidence and hearing both sides, the Family court examined the circumstances in which the children were living and assessed whether transferring custody would serve their welfare.

The High court noted that the Family court had carefully considered the statements of the children as well as other material on record. It recorded a finding that the daughters were studying in school and were receiving proper care while living with their mother. The trial court had specifically concluded that handing over custody to the father would not be in the best interest of the minor girls.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Anshul Shrivastava argued that the mother had remarried another person, through a Natra agreement dated March 4, 2025 and had begun residing with him along with the children. It was submitted that the said circumstance justified reconsideration of custody in favour of the father.

However, the division bench found no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Family court. The High court observed that the lower court had evaluated the entire evidence and had already recorded a clear finding that shifting custody would not advance the welfare of the minor daughters. The bench therefore declined to disturb the order granting custody to the mother.

While dismissing the appeal, the court also noted the grievance raised by the father regarding visitation rights. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the mother was not permitting him to exercise visitation rights granted by the Family court. Taking note of this submission, the High court clarified that the appellant would be at liberty to approach the Family court for appropriate relief in accordance with law.

The bench ultimately held that no illegality or perversity could be found in the impugned order of the Family court. It reiterated that in custody matters, the welfare and best interests of the child override competing claims of parents. Since the evidence indicated that the daughters were studying, being looked after properly and were comfortable in the care of their mother, the court found no ground to alter the arrangement. “We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Family Court,” the bench observed while dismissing the appeal, leaving the father free to pursue remedies regarding visitation before the Family court.

Case Title: Vasudev Dangi v. Smt. Pushpa Bai

Date of Order: March 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi