Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent verdict, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has granted custody of an 18-month-old child to the mother (petitioner), who approached the court with a writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that her 18-month-old son was forcibly kept away from her by her husband and in-laws.

The decision was delivered by a bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani, who termed it an “unfortunate litigation” observing that “even educated people expected to behave in a civilized manner, have crossed all limits conniving amongst themselves in snatching away 18 months' old baby from the lap of his mother.”

The case originated from the marital discord between the wife (petitioner), a qualified dental surgeon, and her husband (respondent No.5), also a dentist, who initially resided together in a house owned in Gwalior by the in-laws of the woman. It was in this house that their baby boy was born. However, tensions escalated, prompting the couple to decide on separate living arrangements in October 2023. They moved to an apartment within Gwalior, with their child. Unfortunately, the change in living situation only exacerbated their differences, leading to a flurry of allegations and counter-allegations between the spouses.

The husband took custody of the child during a conciliation proceeding at the Police Station. Subsequently, he initiated legal action, filing for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in April 2024. He also applied for custody of the child under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, read with Section 24 of the Guardians and Wards Act.

Central to husband’s case was the allegation of the petitioner's mental disorder, specifically citing "Bipolar Disorder."

During the proceedings, the respondents presented medical prescriptions and WhatsApp messages to support their claims of the petitioner's mental instability. Conversely, the petitioner's counsel refuted these allegations, emphasising her professional achievements and caretaking role since the child's birth. They argued for the mother's natural right to custody, particularly considering the child's tender age.

The court affirmed that there was no dispute regarding the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.5, which took place on November 19, 2019, and that the child was born on July 18, 2022. The court also acknowledged that the wife had been the primary caregiver for the child since birth until custody was taken by husband during conciliation proceedings at a police station.

In emphasising the paramount importance of the child's welfare, the court expressed dismay at the public airing of personal disputes between the couple. “An 18 months' old child is not only required to be given natural feeding by his mother but also care by her, at this tender age,” the court said.

The court noted with disappointment that the couple seemed to prioritise their own egos over the welfare of their child and showed little regard for their social standing and reputation while also criticising  the couple's apparent obsession with personal grievances and hostility toward each other, which had led to the airing of their private disputes in public forums, including police intervention.

The court also criticised the conduct of the husband accusing him of inhuman behaviour and noted disappointment with the in-laws stating that “matured, educated couple; medical practitioners on high positions have also not relented and unscrupulously supported the allegations made by respondent No.5 against his wife/petitioner to justify separation of 18 months' old child from his mother. It is indeed uncanny,” emphasising that the two were expected to ensure reconciliation and protect the family from humiliation in public domain.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the petitioner ruling that “the custody of the child shall be given to the petitioner.”  While the husband was granted visiting rights.

 

Cause Title: Rupal Dhir v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP No 9928 of 2024]