Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that a child's custody cannot be awarded to grandparents solely due to an emotional attachment, as this does not grant them any "superior" rights over biological parents. Consequently, while hearing a father's habeas corpus plea, the bench granted him custody of his son.

Background:

The division bench detailed the background of the case, explaining that the petitioner couple had twins born on November 12, 2019. The father, who took over his own father’s position at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) after retirement, agreed with the family arrangement to keep one twin with the grandparents and the other with the biological parents. Over time, tensions arose between the child's parents and grandparents, leading to the parents living apart from the grandparents, who then refused to return custody of the child to the biological parents.

The judges stated, "In our view, the Petitioner being the biological father and natural guardian, has an undisputed legal right to claim custody of his child. The contention of the grandmother that the Petitioner is emotionally and financially incapable of caring for the twins cannot be accepted. Custody cannot be denied on the basis of these allegations. Though grandmother may share an emotional bond with the child, such attachment does not confer upon her a superior right to custody over that of the biological parent."

The court emphasized the natural guardianship rights of the father and mother, noting that such rights could only be limited if it is proven that custody would harm the child's welfare. The bench further observed that there was no marital discord between the twins’ parents and that the father was employed with the BMC.

No evidence suggested the petitioner was unfit to care for his child. Importantly, the other twin, who suffers from cerebral palsy, was already under the father's care. The court remarked, "The child cannot be denied the care of his parents merely because of disputes between the parents and the grandparents, nor can property-related disputes deprive the biological parents of their lawful custody."

Lastly, the judges highlighted that the grandmother, who was 74 years old and had filed a complaint seeking maintenance from the petitioner, had no legitimate right to keep custody of her grandchild over the biological parents. Based on these observations, the bench ordered the grandmother to hand over the minor's custody to his biological parents.

Appearance: Advocates MJ Reena Rolland and Aishwarya Bhandary appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Mayur Sonavane represented the State

Advocates Parul Shah and Pratibha Bangera represented the GrandParents

Case details: Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2374 of 2025)