5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Aug 3, 2026 03:33 PM IST
Granting custody of an eight-year-old boy to his father, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected his mother’s claim that the child was being subjected to stepmotherly treatment after the man remarried. The court noted that the child himself expressed his willingness to continue living with his father.
After interacting with the child, judges noted that he was receiving proper care, education and attention from both his father and stepmother, and held that the child’s welfare was best served by allowing him to remain in his father’s custody while continuing the mother’s visitation rights.
“Upon interaction, the minor child showed his willingness to reside with his father. On being asked whether he has been properly treated in the house and proper attention is being given, he expressed that he has been given proper attention and proper care by his father and the second wife of his father. The child has also expressed his denial to go with his mother,” the July 22 order read.
Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput were hearing an appeal filed by the mother of the boy seeking his custody, arguing that she is in a better position to take care of the child in comparison to the father, who is a driver.
Both parents remarried, dispute over child’s custody
The woman moved an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of her minor son. She claimed that she married the child’s father, who works as a driver, in 2016 and that the couple later obtained a divorce by mutual consent.
The man claimed that his ex-wife was free-spirited and frequently quarrelled with him before returning to her parental home. Despite several requests, he alleged, she refused to return and instead pressured him into obtaining a divorce. He further claimed that he works as a driver, earning about Rs 500 per day and has been taking good care of his son, including looking after his education.
Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput noted that the man claimed that his ex-wife was free-spirited and frequently quarrelled with him before returning to her parental home.
He also submitted that his ex-wife has since remarried and has a son. Therefore, he argued, there is a possibility of the child receiving stepfatherly treatment.
Story continues below this ad
The woman, on the other hand, claimed that her ex-husband has remarried and that his second wife was subjecting the child to stepmotherly treatment and even threatening him. She contended that the possibility of an untoward incident could not be ruled out. She also claimed that she was not allowed to meet her son and was being deprived of the joy of motherhood.
‘Both claiming best person for child’
Noting that both parents claimed that the child’s welfare would be best served in their custody, the court found that the father had been taking care of the child and ensuring his education.
“The welfare of the child is a paramount consideration which requires to be looked into while deciding the application of custody of the minor child,” the court further added.
The court also noted that the mother had remarried and had another son. However, after interacting with the child and considering his wish to continue living with his father, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the family court’s order.
Story continues below this ad
Arguments
The woman was represented by advocates Vishwanath Shriwas and Parasmani Shriwas, who submitted that the child’s welfare, which is the paramount consideration, would be better served in the mother’s custody. The lawyers argued that the father, being a driver, could not devote sufficient time to the child’s upbringing.
They further submitted that the father had already remarried and that there was a possibility of the child being subjected to stepmotherly treatment. They also argued that the mother’s financial and social status was better than that of the father.
On the contrary, the man was represented by advocate Pawan Kumar Kashyap, who argued that the woman had left the minor son four to five years earlier when he was very young and had thereafter never shown any love or affection towards him.
Kashyap added that the woman has remarried and has a son and, therefore, there is a possibility of the child receiving stepfatherly treatment from her second husband. He further submitted that his client has been providing proper care, affection, and education to the minor son.
Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput noted that the man claimed that his ex-wife was free-spirited and frequently quarrelled with him before returning to her parental home.