Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment while setting aside an order by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), directing that custody of the infant be restored to the mother. The court stressed the importance of the mother’s right to nurture her child, aligning with the principle of the child’s best interests.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court has ruled that separating a one-year-and-four-month-old infant from her mother infringes on both the mother’s right to breastfeed and the child’s right to be breastfed, which are integral aspects of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court also emphasized that the Constitution obligates the State to promote nutrition, implicitly endorsing breastfeeding practices.
Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment while setting aside an order by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), directing that custody of the infant be restored to the mother. The court stressed the importance of the mother’s right to nurture her child, aligning with the principle of the child’s best interests.
In a pointed remark, the court stated:
“This important attribute of motherhood is protected under the umbrella of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is unfortunate that this innocent child, through no fault of its own, has been deprived of breastfeeding, as the mother was denied access to her. In a civilized society, such situations should not occur.”BRIEF FACTS
The case involved a dispute between the petitioner (the mother) and her husband, who were married in 2019, with their child born in 2023. Three months after the child’s birth, the mother left her husband, alleging harassment. Following this, the husband filed a police complaint, resulting in an FIR.
The mother sought refuge with her own mother but later eloped with another man, prompting additional complaints by her husband.
During the investigation, the police produced the petitioner before a Magistrate, who, after recording her statement, permitted her to live independently, acknowledging that she was 23 years old and had voluntarily chosen to stay with another person.
However, the Magistrate ordered the police to present the child before the CWC, suspecting the need for care and protection. The CWC subsequently granted custody of the child to the father, leading the mother to challenge the decision before the High Court.
The court criticized the CWC’s decision, observing that the Committee was biased by the mother’s personal choices instead of prioritizing the child’s well-being.
The court remarked
“That the child’s mother chose to live with a person other than her husband is irrelevant to the Committee. While the petitioner may not align with the moral standards of the Committee members, that does not disqualify her as a fit mother. Personal moral values often lead to prejudiced decisions, and regrettably, the Committee’s order reflects such bias.”
The court referenced its earlier ruling in Aneesa F. v. Shafeekmon K.I. (2023), which cautioned that moral judgments can impair the impartiality required in legal proceedings. It found that the CWC’s order violated both the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights of the petitioner and her child.
The court expressed particular concern that the CWC overlooked the fact that the infant was being breastfed, stating: “It is surprising that the Committee did not consider the fact that the child was being breastfed before hastily awarding custody to the father.”
As a result, the High Court set aside the CWC’s order and directed the immediate transfer of custody to the mother.
