Child’s Welfare Overrides Personal Law: Bombay High Court Grants Custody to Mother of Nine‑Year‑Old

Bombay High Court prioritises the best interests of a nine‑year‑old boy over Muslim personal law, granting custody to his mother and reinforcing child-centric interpretation of guardianship statutes.

In a significant judgment on July 21, 2025, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child’s welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the ground that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child post the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child’s emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances.

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The Court held that the father’s legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years.

The boy, who was born in 2015, had been living with his mother in Bidar, Karnataka, ever since the parents separated in 2020. The father, residing in Latur, Maharashtra, had approached the family court seeking custody, alleging that the mother’s house was overcrowded and that she was neglecting the child’s welfare. The family court ruled in the father’s favour in December 2023, citing compliance with religious customs and perceived environmental disadvantages at the mother’s residence. However, the High Court noted that there was no sufficient evidence to suggest that the child’s well-being was compromised or that the father could offer a more secure or stable environment.

A significant factor in the High Court’s reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The Court emphasised that the child’s preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding.

Further, the Court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father’s household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child’s comfort and care.

Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The Court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent.

The Court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child’s needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother’s custody.

Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla, the Court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law, but must take into account the child’s mental, emotional, and developmental needs.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court’s order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The Court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child’s schooling, mental peace, or daily routine.

Case Title: Sau Khalida @ Saniya Ismile Quadri v. Ismile Quadri & Ors (First Appeal 348 of 2024)

Judgment Date: July 21, 2025

Bench: Justice Shailesh P Brahme, Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench