Case Name: Saurav Kumar v. Megha Kandhway
Case Number: F.A. No. 178 of 2025.
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2026.
Date of Hearing: Not specified in the provided judgment.
Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akhil Kumar (Division Bench).
Facts of the case:
It is stated that the appellant, Saurav Kumar, and the respondent, Megha Kandhway, got married on 16 July 2012, according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is further added that Master Trishaan Kumar, a son, was born out of their marriage on 24 March 2021. In the case of marital disputes, the couple separated starting from 19 August 2023, and the wife along with the minor child left the house. The husband has claimed that his wife left him and stopped him from meeting the minor child. In addition to that, the husband claims that he had been performing his responsibilities towards his family and financially he was capable of giving proper education and facilities to his son. The husband filed a petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court. In that case, the Family Court, by an order dated 23 September 2024, did not grant temporary custody of the child from the mother as the child was at a tender age. However, it granted the father visiting rights once a month for two hours and virtual meeting rights twice a week for half an hour. But it did provide him with the right to visit his child once a month for two hours and also to interact online for half an hour twice a week. Displeased with the denial of temporary custody, he went to the Jharkhand High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Legal issues:
- Whether the biological father, being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, becomes entitled to the custody of his minor child.
- Whether the welfare and best interest of the child should take precedence over the legal rights of the parents while determining the custody of the child.
- Whether it was justifiable on part of the Family Court to deny temporary custody to the father and permit the child to remain with the mother.
- Whether the ability of the father to provide for the financial needs of the child should weigh more than the emotional affection of the mother while determining custody.
- Whether the father deserved the visitation right so that he could have an emotional tie with the child.
- Whether the decision of the Family Court was perverse, arbitrary or illegal, which necessitated the intervention of the High Court.
- Whether the visitation rights of the Family Court were adequate enough for ensuring the rights of the child to have access to both the parents.
Legal provisions:
- Section 26, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Empowers the court to pass orders regarding the custody, maintenance and education of minor children during matrimonial proceedings.
- Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Allows a spouse to approach the court when the other spouse has withdrawn from their company without a reasonable excuse and seek restoration of marital life.
- Section 19(1), Family Courts Act, 1984 – Provides the right to appeal against certain judgments or orders passed by a Family Court before the High Court.
- Section 6, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Identifies the natural guardians of a minor child; ordinarily, the mother has custody of a child below five years of age.
- Section 9, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Deals with the appointment of testamentary guardians by a will made by a natural guardian.
- Section 13, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Makes the welfare of the minor child the most important consideration while deciding guardianship matters.
Analysis:
The Jharkhand High Court analysed the legality of the denial by the Family Court of transferring the custody of the minor child from the mother to the father. The High Court laid down that when dealing with the issue of custody of the child, what is essential is the welfare of the child, and not the legal right or claims of either of the parents. According to the Court, it is not correct to say that the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has the automatic right to claim custody. Nor can the financial ability of a parent be the sole criterion.
The Court also considered that the child was very young and had been living with the mother since the separation of the parents. The current situation was thus significant while assessing the question of whether any change in custody will be advantageous for the child. The Court could not find any sufficient reason for overturning the decision of the Family Court, especially because the order was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that the child requires love, affection, and involvement of both parents. Hence, rather than changing the custody from the mother to the father, the Court chose to maintain the child’s current place of residence with the mother, while giving the father the opportunity for visitation and communication. The High Court also noted the problem in implementing the visitation arrangement. In order to ensure that the visitation rights of the father will not remain only on the papers but will be implemented in practice, the Court ordered the Member Secretary of JHALSA to coordinate with the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). The visitation arrangement should have considered the schedule of the child’s school.
Conclusion:
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal against the order passed by the Family Court and ruled out any sufficient ground to interfere in the matter. The High Court upheld the principle that in cases relating to the custody of minors, the welfare of the child will take precedence over the competing rights and interests of the parents. Even though as per section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956, the father can be deemed to be the natural guardian of the child; this fact alone does not confer him any right to the physical custody of the child. It was observed by the Court that it would be in the interest of the tender age and welfare of the child to stay in the custody of his mother. At the same time, the fact also cannot be ignored that a child needs to be loved, cherished and protected by both his parents. Thus, in view of these factors, the visiting right of the father as granted by the Family Court remained intact. In addition, these visitations had to take place under the supervision of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) by the concerned District Legal Services.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: Krittika Sengupta
