Why Madras High Court ruled a child ‘must not grow up without his father’

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that the child should not grow up without knowing who his father is and how his father treats him.

The order added that the mother is not averse to the child spending some time with the father, but she only suffers from an apprehension about the child spending a prolonged period, as sought in the application.

A father and his quest for child’s custody

The applicant, the father of a child moved two applications under the Guardians and Wards Act. He sought interim custody of his son, aged three years and eight months, for a period from mid-April to early June.

The court noted that when the applications were taken up on May 14, a representation was made by the mother’s advocate, Nithianandam, informed that the child had gone for an “educational tour” to New Delhi.

Appearing for the father advocate, K S Sumathi, stated that on an earlier occasion, i.e., in April, the child had stayed overnight with the father and did not report any discomfort.

However, the mother stated that the child had reported that it had fallen down in the bathroom, and adequate medical treatment had not been given to it. The father claimed that it was a minor incident that happened, as in the case of any other child. He stated that he had inspected the child and did not find any bruise at the time of the fall, and left it as it was.

Court’s findings

• I have interacted with both the applicant and the respondent.
• Being a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, this court is concerned only with the best interests of the child.
• The child seems to be comfortable with the company of the father, and the mother is also not averse to the father spending quality time with the child.
• Her only apprehension was that the child might not be taken care of in a proper manner when he is in the custody of the applicant.

Other court’s ruling on child custody

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a man’s habeas corpus (you shall have the body) plea for visiting his minor child and held that there was no ground to indicate that the child was confined in an illegal custody to invoke the plea of habeas corpus.

A bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S was listening to a habeas corpus plea filed by a father employed in the UAE, contending that he was being denied communication and visitation rights to his child by the mother of the child, who was deliberately flouting the conditions of the mediation agreement agreed upon by them.

In the order dated 25th May 2026, it was observed by the court that “from the pleadings in the petition, it cannot be said that the minor child born in wedlock between the petitioner (father) and the 3rd respondent (mother), is in illegal confinement by any person, much less the 3rd respondent.”

The Calcutta High Court recently modified a custody arrangement in an ongoing dispute between the estranged parents of a child diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), observing that “parents should be ready to sacrifice their own wishes for the best interest” of the child.

The Calcutta High Court further emphasised that the estranged couple should ensure that the child’s condition improves and develops, and there is no deterioration, even in the least.

“Both parties have agreed to (and in any case they should) take into consideration the special needs of the child. The parents should be ready to sacrifice their own wishes for the best interest of the child,” the May 15 order read.