Financial status not sole ground for guardianship
Better financial resources of either of a separated parent cannot merely be the ground for securing guardianship of their child, a Delhi court has held while denying a father the custody of his 9-year-old son.
New Delhi: Better financial resources of
either of a separated parent cannot merely be the ground for
securing guardianship of their child, a Delhi court has held
while denying a father the custody of his 9-year-old son.
Noting that the child`s welfare is the sole criteria
for decision in such cases, Additional Sessions and Civil
Judge Gautam Manan refused Delhi resident Mohommad Faizayab`s
plea seeking his son`s custody from his separated wife and
allowed him to visit his son once every month.
"Mere fact that the petitioner (father) is having
better financial status than respondent (mother) cannot be a
ground to transfer the custody of the child to him.
"The fact is also to be taken care of that in case the
child`s custody is given to the petitioner, he will have to
live with his step-mother after leaving his natural mother.
This may cause an emotional setback and can have an adverse
impact on the child," the judge said.
The court also said guardianship cases must be only
to ensure welfare of the children and should not be used to
vent personal grudges in which the child suffers.
"Guardianship court is not a platform where litigation
parties can be permitted to vent their grudges. Since in all
the guardianship cases it is the child only who are the
victims even though they have no role to pay in the failed
marriages of their parents," he said.
The court was told that Faizayab and his wife,
Munnawar Begum, were separated two years after their marriage
in 2001. Each of them averred before the court that the
behavior and attitude of the other was not proper against each
Munnawar said while marrying Faizayab she was unaware
of her husband`s earlier marriage and had to live with his
She told the court that the child is living with her,
studying in a recognized public school and is being brought up
with the help of his maternal uncles.
"The petitioner has failed to prove that the child is
not getting proper care and education while he is residing
with his mother. On the other hand it has come in evidence
that the child is getting good education. He, in order to take
care of the child, is dependent on his second wife," the judge
The court added, "however, it is also in paramount
interest and welfare of the child that he should never loose
contact with his father. Thus, in view of the facts of the
case, the petitioner is given visitation rights to meet his
son every fourth Sunday of each month from 11:00 am to