Delhi court denies mother custody after daughters call aunt, uncle ‘mummy, papa’

The court said “due and meaningful” weightage ought to be given to the “wishes and preferences of a minor, particularly where the child is of sufficient age and maturity to form an intelligent preference” in custody and guardianship cases. “The wishes expressed by the minors in the present case, viewed in the light of their existing emotional bonds and the circumstances in which they have been brought up, are therefore a material consideration, and they did not whisper nor were curious to know anything about the petitioner, what to say of going with her,” the August 19 ruling stated.

The ruling also noted that, to arrive at a just decision, this court had also interacted with both the children in its chamber for around five minutes each, and certain general questions like their names, addresses, school name, details of family members, friends, etc. It added that both the children told the names of their parents to uncle and aunty, and they were referring to them as “Papa” and “Mummy”. The younger daughter said she did not know the petitioner and identified her aunt as her mother.

Judge Laka stressed that the facts, coupled with the court’s interaction with the minors, clearly demonstrate that appointing the petitioner as guardian and entrusting the children’s custody to her would not be conducive to the children’s welfare. “Such a course would have the potential to disrupt their long-standing bond with the persons who have cared for them, and to sever the deep-rooted ties of love, affection, attachment and emotional security that have developed over the years,” he added.

The order underscored that an abrupt change in their living arrangement, after such prolonged continuity, is likely to cause considerable emotional and psychological distress and may adversely affect their overall well-being and sense of security.

Mother seeks custody of daughters

The case arose from the plea of a woman seeking interim custody of her two minor daughters from her in-laws and other relatives under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. According to her plea, her two daughters were born in 2016 and 2019. She alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in 2022, and was thereafter denied access to her children. Her husband died in 2025, but she claimed the respondents continued to prevent her from meeting or communicating with the girls.

The respondents, however, alleged that the woman had herself abandoned the children and had not cared for them. They said their grandparents, uncle and aunt had continuously raised the children for more than four years and that moving them to their mother’s custody would adversely affect their physical and psychological well-being.

“The petitioner did not place on record any substantial material to show that she had ever tried earlier to take/seek custody of her children. During the last more than four years, the children have been brought up and taken care of by their grandparents as well as uncle, elder brother of the deceased, and his wife,”

The woman argued that, following her husband’s death, she was the natural guardian of the children and was financially capable of supporting them. The respondents maintained that the children were settled with their present caregivers.

“Daughters not curious to know anything about mother”

The court observed that being the natural guardian does not automatically entitle a parent to custody. Although the mother became the natural guardian after her husband’s death, the decisive consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the children. The court noted that the children had been living with their grandparents, uncle and aunt for more than four years, and had been raised and cared for by them during this period.

The elder daughter, after being told that the petitioner was her biological mother and that if she wanted to meet her once or twice in two or three months, refused to go with her or even meet her and started crying. The court considered this reaction significant while assessing the children’s welfare.

“Both the children were found to be very comfortable with this family having all the love and affection,” it remarked.

The court took note of the situation that the wishes expressed by the minors in the present case, viewed in the light of their existing emotional bonds and the circumstances in which they have been brought up, are therefore a material consideration, and they did not whisper nor were curious to know anything about the petitioner, what to say of going with her.