Divorce case lawyer in East Delhi India

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Parvati v. Vyankat, Writ Petition No. 6529 of 2025, decided on 15-7-2025

Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the biological mother (Petitioner) of a five and half year-old daughter, challenging the rejection of her interim custody application by the District Judge. A Single Judge Bench of S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J., allowed the petition and granted interim custody of the minor girl to the mother, holding that under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the ‘Act of 1956’), the mother was the natural guardian after the father’s death, unless it was established that she had an adverse interest or was incapable of securing the welfare of the minor.

Decision: The Court acknowledged that while the child had been in the custody of the respondents for almost the last four years, despite that, the Court had to primarily look for the welfare of the child. The Court referred to Section 6(a) of the Act of 1956, which stated that in the case of an unmarried girl, the father, and after him, the mother, was the natural guardian of the minor, and in the case of a minor who had not completed five years, the mother would have precedence in the matter of custody of the minor. Thus, the Court opined that the minor girl child should be given in custody of mother unless it was established that she had adverse interest or incapacity to secure welfare of minor. The Court observed that, at the time of divorce, the petitioner was dependent on her parents and had no income, and accepted the child’s custody with the husband as he was available to care for the child with the respondents’ help, however, this did not mean she abandoned the child. The Court noted that circumstances had drastically changed after the father’s death, as the petitioner was now engaged in business with sufficient income to support herself and the child. Moreover, better education could be provided at Nanded, where facilities were better to those at the respondents’ place. The Court emphasised that merely because grandparents or other relatives had nurtured the child for some period, the natural guardian could not be denied right of custody of child unless it was shown that welfare of minor would be jeopardised. The Court noted that, as the child grew older, the difficulties in handing over custody would increase, and nothing was brought on record to show that the petitioner was incapable of appropriately caring for the minor girl, or that maintaining custody with the grandparents would better ensure her welfare. The Court therefore allowed the petition and granted interim custody of the minor to the petitioner, with directions ensuring that the respondents would not be prevented from accessing the child and shall be entitled to temporary custody of the minor for a specified period, as fixed by the District Judge.

Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi

Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer