The Orissa High Court ruled that a father’s custody claim cannot be rejected only because he did not submit the wife’s death certificate and the child’s birth certificate, set-a siding the Family Court’s technical grounds for denial.
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court recently ruled that a father cannot be denied custody of his minor child solely due to his inability to provide a birth certificate to establish paternity.
In a decision that reversed a Family Court’s earlier ruling that denied a father’s custody request, Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra pointed out that the lower court was unjustified in rejecting the father’s custody plea on technical grounds specifically, not presenting the death certificate of his wife and the child’s birth certificate.
The appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, in conjunction with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, was made by the Appellant, the child’s biological father, challenging the Family Court’s verdict.
Also Read: Paternity and Privacy Are Two Sides of the Same Coin | Supreme Court Blocks DNA Test
Justice Mishra articulated,
“Keeping in view the legal provisions under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the welfare of the child, the right of the father to have his custody and after consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case detailed above, this Court finds that the learned Court below was not justified to reject such prayer for custody of the child on technical ground for not producing and proving the death certificate of Appellant’s wife as well as birth certificate of the Respondent No.2.”
The Appellant initiated a Guardian Miscellaneous Case in the Family Court of Bhadrak, seeking to be recognized as the legal guardian and custodian of the child. He claimed that he and the deceased were married in 2019 and lived together peacefully.
After the death of his wife from a cardiac arrest while visiting her parental home, the minor child was left in the care of the maternal grandfather, who did not allow the father access to the child.
The Appellant asserted that the child, only 10 months old, was being deprived of proper nutrition and a normal upbringing.
Despite repeated attempts to see his child, the grandfather continued to restrict his access, prompting the Appellant to seek legal intervention.
The Bench observed that the child had been separated from his father, the Appellant, shortly after his mother’s death at just a few weeks old, and had since been living with his maternal grandfather. The Bench asserted that the grandfather did not have a stronger claim to the child than the father, who is recognized as the natural guardian.
Additionally, it noted that there were no allegations of marital discord or abuse against the father or mother while she was alive, nor any claims about the father being unfit as a guardian due to unemployment or lack of education.
Finding no legal impediment to the father’s claim to custody, the Bench emphasized that denying the father custody would deprive both him and the child of the emotional bond they deserve.
The Court highlighted that, according to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, a paternal claim to custody cannot be contested, especially after the mother’s death.
Also Read: Paternity Of Children| Allahabad HC Orders Man to Undergo DNA Test or Pay Maintenance
Therefore, the Bench concluded that the father was justified in seeking guardianship of his child following his wife’s passing.
The appeal was granted, and the maternal grandfather was ordered to surrender custody of the minor child to the father.
However, the Court permitted the grandfather to visit the child at the father’s home.
Advocate P.K. Sahoo represented the Appellant.
Case Title: Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr.
Read Attachment