Whose Claim Prevails In Child Custody? Delhi HC Reiterates Settled Principles

Can a grandfather seek custody of his grandchildren on the ground that he can provide them with a better upbringing than their mother? In Ram Kumar v. Smt. Asha Kataria,¹ the Delhi High Court examined a custody dispute between a mother and the paternal grandfather following the death of the children’s father. The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar considered the competing claims in light of the principles governing guardianship, parental fitness and the welfare of children. The case also raised questions concerning the significance of children’s expressed wishes and the circumstances in which grandparents may seek custody or visitation rights.

The appellant, Ram Kumar, was the paternal grandfather of Shantanu Grover and Mannat Grover. His son, Ravinder Grover, married Asha Kataria on 1 November 2006 according to Hindu rites and customs. The couple had a daughter on 7 July 2008, followed by a son on 4 June 2010. However, matrimonial differences arose between them, resulting in FIR No. 205/2012 under Sections 406 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code² at Maurya Enclave Police Station, Delhi. The FIR was subsequently quashed by the Delhi High Court on 24 May 2013.

Following Ravinder Grover’s death on 1 December 2016, both children continued to reside with their mother. The grandfather subsequently approached the Family Court under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,³ seeking custody of the children. He alleged that the mother was preventing them from meeting their paternal grandparents and contended that he could provide them with better education, care and a more congenial upbringing. According to him, the children’s welfare would be better served if they lived with their grandparents.

During the proceedings, the Family Court interacted with the children to ascertain their preferences. Its order dated 5 March 2025 recorded that the children could barely recognise their grandfather and did not wish to maintain contact with him. Instead, they expressed their desire to continue living with their mother. The Family Court subsequently dismissed the grandfather’s custody petition through its judgment dated 15 May 2026. Aggrieved by the decision, the grandfather approached the Delhi High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,⁴ challenging the refusal to transfer custody. The High Court condoned delays of 85 days in filing and 21 days in re-filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,⁵ read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908⁶ before examining the matter on merits.

The Court observed that the children, being almost 18 and 15 years of age, had independent minds and their preference to live with their mother could not be presumed to have been tutored. It further noted that the daughter had attained majority in July 2026, there was no evidence of improper upbringing and allegations of cruelty were beyond the scope of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.⁷

The principal issue before the High Court was whether the Family Court had erred in refusing to transfer custody to the paternal grandfather. The Court had to consider whether the mother’s employment affected her ability to raise the children, whether the allegations against her demonstrated neglect or incapacity, and whether the grandfather’s claim of providing a better upbringing justified displacing her custody. The children’s expressed preference and their welfare also formed important considerations in determining whether the existing custody arrangement should be disturbed.

The High Court found no material on record indicating that the mother was bringing up the children improperly or was incapable of discharging her parental responsibilities. It noted that she was an Income Tax Officer, financially independent, had accommodation of her own and was taking care of both children. The Bench rejected the suggestion that her employment made her less capable of raising them. A working mother’s professional commitments cannot automatically be treated as evidence of neglect or as a reason to transfer custody to grandparents.

The Bench emphasised that a natural guardian has a superior claim to custody over grandparents unless circumstances establish that the parent is unfit, incapable or negligent. It observed that a mother cannot be deprived of her children, nor can children be deprived of their mother, without sufficient grounds. Under Section 4(c) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956⁸ a “natural guardian” means a guardian mentioned in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,⁹ provides that, in the case of a Hindu minor boy or unmarried girl, the father is the natural guardian and, after him, the mother.

The High Court also noted that the children were almost 18 and 15 years of age, had independent minds and wished to continue living with their mother. It found no evidence of neglect or improper upbringing and observed that the children were capable of rational thinking. Considering these circumstances and the granddaughter’s attainment of majority, the Court held that the Family Court’s decision refusing custody to the grandparents did not warrant interference.

In reaching its conclusion, the Bench relied on Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.¹⁰  which stated that  the Supreme Court considered a father’s claim to custody against the competing claim of the child’s maternal grandparents. It observed that grandparents could not have a better claim than the father, who was the natural guardian, in the absence of circumstances disentitling him from exercising his parental rights. The Supreme Court also considered the child’s welfare in the particular facts of that case and found that it would be best served by granting custody to the father. Relying on this decision, the Delhi High Court reiterated that the claim of a natural guardian cannot be displaced merely because grandparents believe they can provide a better environment or because the child has been residing with them. The child’s welfare continues to govern the final determination.

The Court also attached considerable importance to the children’s wishes. It recorded that the children were 17 and 14 years of age at the time of passing of the impugned order and were capable of rational thinking. The Court found no reason to conclude that their preference had been tutored. Their expressed desire to remain with their mother was therefore relevant to the assessment of their welfare.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal. It observed that the granddaughter was free to visit her grandparents if she wished and could neither be compelled to meet them nor restrained from doing so. The grandfather was permitted to approach the Family Court for visitation rights, subject to ascertaining the grandchildren’s willingness.

Citations

1. Ram Kumar v. Smt. Asha Kataria MAT.APP.(F.C.) 389/2026 ↩︎
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860, ss. 406 & 498A ↩︎
3. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, No. 8 of 1890, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 25 ↩︎
4. The Family Courts Act, 1984, No. 66 of 1984, s. 19 ↩︎
5. The Limitation Act, 1963, No. 36 of 1963, s. 5 ↩︎
6. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5 of 1908, s. 151 ↩︎
7. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, No. 8 of 1890. ↩︎
8. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, No. 32 of 1956, s. 4(c). ↩︎
9. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, No. 32 of 1956, s. 6 ↩︎
10. Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) 4 SCC 342 ↩︎

Expositor(s): Adv. Gaurangi Tandon