Blog

In a significant recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that Regular Civil Courts or Family Courts are more suitable forums than Writ Courts for deciding child custody matters. This judgment, which criticized a High Court’s decision to alter the custody of a toddler in a writ proceeding, provides important legal clarity on the issue. The Court explained the various reasons why civil and family courts, rather than writ courts, should be entrusted with such sensitive cases, especially when a child’s welfare is at stake.

The Legal Foundation: Guardianship and Wards Act (GW Act)

At the core of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is the Guardianship and Wards Act (GW Act), a comprehensive statute that governs matters related to the custody and guardianship of minors. The Court underscored that disputes concerning child custody are best resolved within the framework of this Act. Civil and Family Courts are well-equipped to address the nuances involved in these cases, unlike Writ Courts, where such proceedings are generally more summary in nature.

The Supreme Court highlighted several practical and legal reasons why Civil and Family Courts are better suited for these matters:

1. Frequent Interaction with the Child

One of the most significant advantages is that Family Courts provide a conducive environment for regular and meaningful interaction between the judicial officer and the child. Many Family Courts have dedicated child play centres where children can feel comfortable and at ease. This allows the judge to observe the child’s behaviour in a neutral setting without the stress of a formal courtroom atmosphere.

This interaction is crucial in understanding the child’s emotional state, needs, and preferences—elements that are difficult to assess in the formal and expedited proceedings of a Writ Court.

2. Ability to Record Evidence

Civil and Family Courts have the procedural framework necessary to record extensive evidence. In child custody cases, it is often essential to consider testimonies from both parties, extended family members, and even experts such as child psychologists. These courts can appoint experts to carry out psychological evaluations of the child and other parties, ensuring that decisions are made with a full understanding of the child’s welfare.

Writ Courts, on the other hand, focus on the legality of the custody rather than the best interests of the child, making them less suited to handle the depth of evidence that such cases require.

3. Monitoring Custody and Access

A Family Court can closely monitor custody arrangements and provide controlled access to the child for the non-custodial parent. If necessary, the court can adjust the terms of access or custody based on how the child responds to the arrangement. For example, if a child is too young or vulnerable, a Family Court can impose conditions such as supervised visitation, which may not be practical or easily enforceable in a Writ Court.

4. Child-Centric Approach

The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in all custody matters. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that any decision on child custody must prioritize the child’s emotional, psychological, and physical well-being. The child’s welfare cannot be treated in a mechanistic manner, and the Supreme Court cautioned against viewing the child as mere property to be transferred without evaluating the broader impact of such moves. Civil and Family Courts, with their holistic approach and ability to delve deeply into the facts, are better equipped to make decisions that align with the child’s best interests.

5. Discretionary Nature of Writ Courts

Writ Courts have limited jurisdiction in child custody cases, often handling such cases under the prerogative writ of Habeas Corpus, an extraordinary legal remedy traditionally used to address illegal detention. While a writ of Habeas Corpus can be used in cases where the custody of a child is deemed illegal, the Supreme Court made it clear that Writ Courts should exercise discretion cautiously in these matters.

Even if a child’s custody is found to be technically illegal, Writ Courts may decline to issue orders if they believe doing so would disrupt the child’s welfare. Therefore, while Writ Courts have a role to play, their jurisdiction is inherently limited when compared to the substantive proceedings available in Civil and Family Courts.

6. Doctrine of Parens Patriae

The judgment reaffirms the Court’s role as the guardian of minors, rooted in the doctrine of Parens Patriae. This principle gives the state a protective role over children, especially in custody disputes. The Court made it clear that it must approach these cases with a sense of compassion and humanitarian considerations, not just with a focus on legality. This reinforces the idea that Family Courts, which can consider the broader emotional and social impact on the child, are in a better position to make decisions in custody matters.

Conclusion: Civil and Family Courts as the Right Forum

The Supreme Court’s decision provides a clear message that Civil and Family Courts are better equipped to handle the intricacies of child custody cases. By focusing on the welfare of the child, frequent interactions with the child, recording evidence, and appointing experts, these courts ensure that the child’s best interests are served. In contrast, Writ Courts, with their limited scope and discretionary powers, are not as well-positioned to navigate the complex emotional and psychological factors involved in child custody cases.

This judgment not only clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries but also reinforces the principle that child custody disputes require careful and compassionate handling, something that Family and Civil Courts are designed to provide.

If you’re seeking expert legal guidance in Kolkata, Innerwork Advisors LLP is the team you need. With a reputation for excellence and a deep understanding of family law and custody matters, they are well-equipped to handle even the most complex cases. Whether you need advice on custody disputes, guardianship, or any legal issues, Innerwork Advisors LLP can provide the support you deserve.

Connect with Innerwork Advisors LLP today for your legal needs.

Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Right to Privacy: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India