On September 5, 2025, the Bombay High Court reasserted that emotional attachment alone cannot discard the custody rights of biological parents. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad ordered the Mumbai Police to transfer custody of a five-year-old boy from his grandmother(74 years old) to his father within two weeks.
The boy was born through the process of surrogacy in 2019 and continued living with his grandparents due to early health issues. After the COVID-19 lockdowns, disputes started to erupt when the grandmother refused to return her grandson to him, alleging that the father was unfit and had a personal interest with respect to property appropriation. The father filed a habeas corpus petition to reclaim the custody of his son.
The Honourable High Court held that the father was the biological (by law, through surrogacy) and legitimate parent and also the natural guardian of the child. Hence, he had a clear legal right to custody. While acknowledging the grandmother’s emotional bond, the judges ruled that such attachment cannot trump statutory parental rights unless the parent is proven unfit to take care of the child and giving custody to the father would affect the child in a negative manner. The Honourable court found the father gainfully employed, living in harmony with his wife, and fully capable of raising both children. Claims of property disputes were dismissed as there was no substantive proof to back the allegations.
The grandmother’s advanced age(74 years old) and financial dependence, noted in her own police complaint, further weakened her claim to the child's custody. However, the court recognised her role in the child’s upbringing by granting visitation rights, allowing her to meet the boy on weekday evenings for three months, accompanied by her daughters. The father was directed to ensure the child’s schooling and the various other activities associated with the child without disruption.
Therefore, legally, this ruling echoes the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, both of which place the welfare of the child as of paramount importance. The judgment makes clear that while the emotional aspects should be tied to the values, custody rights rest primarily with biological parents unless compelling evidence shows otherwise.
Referrence
