Case Brief: Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla & Anr.

Case Detail	Information
NAME OF THE CASE	Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and Anr.
CITATION	AIR 2000 SC 2172; Civil Appeal No. 3413 of 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT	12th May, 2000
PETITIONER	Jai Prakash Khadria (Maternal Grandfather)
RESPONDENT	Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and Anr. (Paternal Grandfather)
BENCH / JUDGE	S.B. Majmudar and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
STATUTES INVOLVED	Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
IMPORTANT SECTIONS	Section 7 – Appointment of guardians

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case involved a custody dispute between two grandfathers – maternal and paternal – over their grandson Ankur. In May 1990, Meera married Sanjay, and Ankur was born in December 1991. Ankur was admitted to Maria Montessory School, Guwahati in 1995. Unfortunately, Sanjay died of a heart attack in 1995, leaving behind his young son Ankur.

On 27th February 1997, Ankur’s paternal grandfather (respondent No. 1) filed a case under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking appointment as guardian and custodian of Ankur. He also sought an injunction restraining Meera from giving Ankur in adoption.

The maternal grandfather (appellant) and his daughter claimed that Ankur had been adopted by the appellant on 9th February 1997, and a deed of adoption was executed and registered on 28th February 1997 at Golaghat sub-Registry.

The Family Court initially rejected the paternal grandfather’s prayer for interim custody, but he succeeded in revision before the High Court. The High Court directed interim custody to be given to the paternal grandfather on 19th February 1998. This order was later varied by the Supreme Court based on an agreement between parties.

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Section 7, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: Provides for the appointment of guardians for the person or property of a minor.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the paternal grandfather or maternal grandfather should be granted custody of minor Ankur in the best interest of the child.
2. Whether the alleged adoption of Ankur by his maternal grandfather affects the custody determination.
3. What arrangements should be made for visitation rights to ensure the welfare of the child.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER’S SIDE

• The appellant (maternal grandfather) argued that Ankur had been legally adopted by him through a registered deed of adoption dated 27th February 1997.
• He contended that as the adoptive father, he was the lawful guardian and the paternal grandfather did not deserve custody.
• He argued that the custody should remain with him as the legal adoptive parent.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE

• The respondent (paternal grandfather) challenged the validity of the adoption.
• He argued that as the paternal grandfather, he had a natural right to custody of his grandson.
• He emphasized his attachment to the child and his ability to provide better care and education.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

• The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Family Court and High Court granting custody to the paternal grandfather (respondent No. 1).
• The Court noted that orders relating to custody of children are interlocutory in nature and can be modified upon proof of changed circumstances, provided such change is in the paramount interest of the child.
• The Court observed that the paternal grandfather had demonstrated genuine attachment to Ankur and had even modified his will to bequeath his entire property to the child.
• The Court found that during the time Ankur was with the maternal grandfather, he spent most of his time with servants as the appellant lived mostly in Dergaon (200 km from Guwahati) while Ankur’s school was in Guwahati.
• The Court refrained from commenting on the validity of adoption due to the pendency of a title suit challenging it.
• The Court directed specific arrangements for visitation rights and temporary custody during vacations.

DIRECTIONS GIVEN

1. Primary Custody: Custody of Ankur to be handed over to the paternal grandfather (respondent No. 1) forthwith.
2. Vacation Custody: During half period of summer, winter and other long vacations, temporary custody to be given to the maternal grandfather.
3. Visitation Rights: The maternal grandfather, his wife, and Ankur’s mother can meet Ankur in the house of the paternal grandfather, provided it does not hinder his studies.
4. Weekend Visits: The maternal grandfather has the right to take Ankur to Dergaon on one weekend per month (Friday evening/Saturday morning to Sunday evening).
5. Financial Security: Both grandfathers were directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- each in fixed deposits in the name of minor Ankur, which would remain untouchable until Ankur attains majority.

CONCLUSION

This landmark decision states the main consideration in custody cases, that is, the welfare and best interest of a child. The Court held that custody orders are interlocutory in nature and hence can be modified in appropriate circumstances. This case portrays the approach of the Court, which aims at giving due weight to the rights of different family members while balancing the continuity of the child’s education and the child’s moral upliftment. The judgment also reflects the pragmatic nature of the Court whereby it ensured financial security to the child of the petitioner through an order of mandatory deposits by both grandfathers. The case affirms that custody decisions are made for blood relatives who have genuine love for the child and are in a position to provide proper care, rather than for those who act on legal technicalities.