Prayagraj, Aug 27 The Allahabad High Court has held that a father, being the natural guardian of his minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot be denied her custody unless he is shown to be unfit to act as her guardian.
A division bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Abhishek Yadav, an advocate from Prayagraj, against a trial court order refusing him custody of his minor daughter.
"In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father has a paramount right to the custody of the children. He cannot be deprived of the custody of the minor child unless it is shown that he is unfit to be her guardian," the court said in its August 21 judgment.
Yadav married in 2019 and the couple had a daughter in 2022. In 2023, his wife's brothers took her to her parental home. She died in 2024.
After his father-in-law and three brothers-in-law refused to hand over custody of the child, Yadav approached the court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
The respondents alleged that Yadav had tortured and physically abused his wife over dowry. They also submitted that the child had been living with her maternal grandfather since she was a few months old and that Yadav was likely to remarry.
The trial court dismissed Yadav's petition, following which he approached the high court.
The high court noted that the child was staying by turns with her maternal grandfather and a maternal aunt who herself had five children, and therefore the respondents were not exclusively caring for her.
"Though we are cognizant of the fact that the minor daughter would face difficulties in adjusting with the appellant and his family, but at the same time, we also are mindful of the fact that the future prospects of the minor daughter do not seem to be very secure and stable if she is allowed to stay with respondents," the bench observed.
"Better future prospects of the minor cannot be jeopardized at the cost of difficulties she is going to face on account of the changed circumstances, if her custody is given to the appellant," it added.
The court accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to hand over custody of the minor to Yadav within one month.
