SUBMITTED BY :- DEVANSH JAISWAL .
PRN :- 23010421129
SUBMITTED TO :- DR.SOUMYA SRIVASTAVA
SUBJECT :- FAMILY LAW
DIVISION :- B
SEMESTER:- IV
ACADEMIC YEAR:- 2024 -2025
CASE ANALYSIS
Details of the case
Case Name: Tejaswini Gaud & Others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1675 of 2019)
Judgment Delivered by: Supreme Court of India
Judgement date :- 8/7/2019
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, R. Banumathi
Appellants: Tejaswini Gaud & Others
Respondents: Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Others
Facts of the Case
Shekar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Zelam got married in May 2006. Then in August 2017, they
became parents to a daughter they named shikha. Their happiness was short termed as Zelam
was diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy, and also Shekhar later fell seriously ill with
Tuberculosis. Because it wasn’t working out to care for Shikha properly, the couple put her in
the household of Zelam’s mother. In particular, little Shikha spent time with Zelam’s sister who
lives in Mumbai. In October 2018, Zelam passed away. By then Shekhar had recovered fully and
wanted to get custody of Shikha too.
However, her maternal relatives refused, arguing that Shikha had already lived with them and
separating her would not be in her best interest of the child . Shekhar filed a habeas corpus
petition in the Bombay High Court, asserting his right as the natural guardian under Section 6 of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA). The High Court ruled in his favor,
ordering Shikha’s return
. The maternal family took it to the Supreme Court raising the point that when it comes to a
child's well being it should actually supersede the matter of guardianship rights. They argued that
suddenly removing Shikha from her familiar environment could cause emotional distress.
The question before the court was whether custody should remain with the father or be given
back to him. This is because the father was thought to be the natural guardian, and custody had
previously been handed to mother and her relatives since the child was born. Those people took
particularly good care of her.
Issues Raised
1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in matters of child custody.
2. Whether the custody of the minor child should be granted to the natural guardian
(father) or retained by the maternal relatives, considering the welfare of the child.
Petitioner’s (Father’s) Arguments
The petitioner, Shekhar Prasad Tewari, underscores his legal right to custody as the
natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act of 1956.
He maintains that with his wife having passed away he is entitled to and must have
custody of his young daughter Shikha. He contended that the maternal relatives were
unlawfully retaining custody of Shikha, thereby justifying the filing of a writ of
habeas corpus to reclaim his daughter’s custody.
Addressing concerns about his previous health issues, the petitioner acknowledged
that he had been critically ill, which had temporarily impeded his ability to care for
Shikha. He really put emphasis on how he now fully recovered and that he’s now
really good and stable and can take care of his daughter. He argued that, as the
biological parent, he is in best position to ensure Shikha’s welfare, asserting that a
child’s well-being is optimally served under the care of a natural guardian.
The petitioner also emphasized that growing stronger emotional ties with a parent can
happen as time progressesAnd he also referred to court precedents where judges have
backed guardians acting as parents in custody battles if they are fit and capable and he
is laying out his defense for custody of his daughter.
In summary, the petitioner urged the court to recognize his legal rights as the natural
guardian and to consider his restored health and readiness to assume full parental
responsibilities, advocating for the custody of his daughter, Shikha.
.
Respondents’ (Maternal Relatives’) Arguments
Respondents argued that the welfare of the child should be the top paramount
consideration in custody discussions and fights. They argued that because the father
was very sick and couldn't look after Shikha, they had taken responsibility for raising
her up. During this time Shikha has really grown to love and have a strong emotional
bond with her. Shikha moving suddenly across town emotionally would be really
jarring and upsetting too.
And one thing is really important for shikha’s well being is that the family members
really took good care of her Shikha has spent much of her life very close to them and
now moving her away would be hard for her.
Respondents also objected to father's habeas corpus petition. They say habeas corpus
is not the way to handle guardianship fights. . They kept insisting that Shikha was
under legal responsibility of the people who cared for her, never under illegal custody.
Thus the petition for habeas corpus was inapplicable here.
In summary the maternal relative instead the court to give priority to Shikha’s
emotional and psychological wellbeing .They believe that they can take better care of
her.
RULE
The key legal provisions involved in this case.
1. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
2.. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
3.Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) .
4. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 .
5. Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Judgment (procedural history)
1
In Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42, the judgment was
delivered by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.the
Court addressed the custody dispute concerning a minor child, Shikha, following the death of her
mother.
• Both judges were in favor of the decision, and there was no dissenting opinion.
1
Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 S.C.C. 42 (India).
• The ruling was unanimous, emphasizing the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration in
custody matters.
The maternal relatives (appellants) had been caring for Shikha due to the father’s (respondent’s)
hospitalization for a serious ailment. After being ok, the father sued to get custody in court
proceedings.
High Court Proceedings:
The High Court ruled in favor of the father, recognizing him as the sole surviving parent and
natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The court
emphasized that the child required the love, care, and affection of her father. Recognizing the
important role of the parents during Father's illness, the Supreme Court gave them the visitation
rights so they can maintain their bond with Shikha.
Supreme Court Proceedings:
The appellants challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that
. A writ of habeas corpus was inappropriate when an alternative remedy existed under the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Custody decisions should prioritize the child’s welfare over legal entitlements, suggesting that
Shikha’s best interests were served under their care. The Supreme Court considerd yhst fathers
are usually the natural caregivers for children, but in the end, what’s best for the child is what
really matters. The judge noted that the father's sickness is just a temporary issue but as soon as
he recovers he gets to go back and do his parental duties again.
Final Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision by the High Court to hive custody with Father
that's in the interest of the child and Father having those birth rights sort of guardianship. To
keep relationships smooth and to keep ties strong with family, the court drew up specific
visitation plans for the other parties.
The Court mandated that the father facilitate these visits, ensuring the child’s comfort and the
appellants’ continued involvement in her life. This structured approach aimed to balance the
child’s need for stability with the benefits of maintaining extended family relationships.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment reinforced the principle that a child’s welfare is the
foremost consideration in custody disputes, even when a natural guardian seeks custody. By
granting custody to the father and delineating clear visitation rights for the maternal relatives, the
Court aimed to serve Shikha’s best interests, ensuring her holistic development in a loving and
supportive environment.
CASE ANALYSIS : MY OPINION
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari upholds the
principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration , as mandated by Section 13
of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. This section ensures that cases are not
always based solely on legal entitlements but on what is best for the child’s overall well-being.
As per my analysis I observed that the Court’s took suitable approach for protecting the child’s
stability and emotional security. Shikha had been in the care of her maternal relatives since birth,
and they had provided her with a nurturing and stable environment. Uprooting her and placing
her with her father, whom she barely knew, could have caused emotional distress and disrupted
her sense of security. By prioritizing her well-being over strict legal claims, the Court upheld a
more humane approach to custody.
While Section 6 of HMGA recognizes the father as the natural guardian, Section 13 explicitly
states that this recognition is not absolute. Custody should only be granted if it serves the child’s
best interests. The Court correctly assessed whether placing Shikha with her father would truly
benefit her or merely fulfill a legal right. This reaffirmed that the welfare principle must always
take precedence over a rigid application of guardianship laws.
The judgment also reflects a good balance between legal rights and the child’s welfare .
Although the father had a legal claim to custody as her natural guardian .we can also observe that
, the Court ensured that the maternal relatives remained involved in Shikha’s life through
structured visitation rights. This ruling sets an important precedent for future cases
.HOW FAR DO I AGREE
I totally agree with this ruling for it puts the best interests of the children first instead of just
decisions made based on parental rights and privileges. The reasoning of the court aligns with
modern jurisprudence, where the welfare of the child is regarded as the most important factor or
paramount consideration . Having clarity on how custody arrangements might change as children
grow up really could have strengthened this judgment much stronger. Overall this ruling is really
balanced and fits the law well and upholds the principle that the needs and welfare of children
should come first, decisive and fair. It makes clear decisions for custody are made very carefully
considering what is best for the child’s growth and stability rather than just always letting adult
guardianship laws rule the day . The child’s welfare, happiness, and emotional security must
always come first, as emphasized in Section 13 of HMGA. The Court’s decision successfully
upholds this principle, ensuring that custody disputes prioritize the child’s future rather than legal
formalities.
Analysis of Legal Principles and Judicial Precedents ( As per court)
The case of Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari revolves around two major legal
questions. First, whether a habeas corpus petition is a valid remedy in child custody disputes.
Second, whether the welfare of the child should take precedence over the legal rights of the
parents.
To answer these questions, the Supreme Court analyzed relevant constitutional provisions,
statutory laws, and past judicial decisions that have shaped the interpretation of guardianship
laws in India.
1. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Matters
When it comes to custody battles for child, judges have been pretty cautious and careful about
using habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a big legal term that these courts feel they don't have to
handle lightly. When it comes to trying to sort out custody disputes, parents usually start out by
heading through the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 it's the preferred legal road to take. The
Indian Constitution provides the following legal basis for habeas corpus:.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs, including habeas corpus, to enforce
fundamental rights and other legal rights
. Article 32 empowers people to go straight to the Supreme Court and ask for protection of their
fundamental rights directly
. So even though child custody cases do have a harness called habeas corpus that allows for court
hearings if people think custody separation has become legal detention, courts usually only use
this very rarely. They rule that hearings like this should only happen when child end up not
having custody but custody has actually been taken from them when it should have stayed with
them and really can't be justified.
In Tejaswini Gaud, the Supreme Court ruled that since the father was the natural guardian and
there was no legal order denying him guardianship, his habeas corpus petition was maintainable.
But the Court also really made it clear that this kind of request is not to be treated as just an
ordinary way to get custody.
Judicial Precedents on Habeas Corpus in Custody Cases
In Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv Baijal (2009) 7 SCC 322, the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus
is valid in cases where a natural guardian is unlawfully denied custody. If there aren't legal
reasons to something being wrong, custody disputes should be settled following Guardians and
Wards Act of 1890. That's a law that helps give guidance for parents who are trying to sort out
who gets custody of their children. In Tejaswini Gaud, the Court relied on this ruling and
determined that since the father was not illegally deprived of custody, his habeas corpus petition
was valid.
2. Welfare of the Child as the Paramount Consideration
In custody cases, the well being of the child is paramount consideration the most important part .
Courts are always clear that giving children the best chance at emotional, psychological, and
social growth takes precedence over anything else when it comes to guardianships.
The following laws govern custody decisions in India:
Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 clearly states that if a child is
considered a minor and the mother id dead , then ithe father is naturally their guardian.
Under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, the courts think welfare as their first
consideration whenever picking a guardian or making a ward declaration.
Under Section 13 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 of – Welfare of the Child as
Paramount Consideration states that in any decision related to the guardianship of a minor , the
welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration. Even though Shekhar was the natural
guardian, the court had to evaluate whether giving him custody was in the best possible interest
lf shikha.
Even though the law will preferer the father as the natural guardian, courts have ruled that a
child’s welfare is more important than parental rights.n.
Key Judicial Precedents on Child Welfare
1. 2Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42 The Supreme Court emphasized
that child custody decisions must prioritize the child’s best interests over parental rights,
considering emotional, educational, and psychological needs. Tejaswini Gaud took that
point of view and focused on the best interests of the child, rather than the father's legal
argument.
2
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 S.C.C. 42 (India).
2. 3
2. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 The Court ruled that a
biological relationship alone is insufficient for custody; emotional stability is key. It also
stated that a child’s preference should be considered if they are mature enough. Tejaswini
Gaud did this by recognizing the strong connection the child has with maternal relatives,
and understanding how that shapes their emotional life.
3. 4
Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu (1984) 3 SCC 698 Held that child
welfare must prevail over legal technicalities. Custody should not be automatically
granted to a biological parent if it affects the child’s well-being. Tejaswini Gaud
strengthened this by giving structured visitation rights to maternal family members as
well
5
4. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) 1 SCC 840 The Court stated that a child
is not a parent’s property, and decisions must focus on welfare over legal entitlements.
Tejaswini Gaud upheld this by balancing the father’s rights with the child’s emotional
stability and continued interaction with her maternal family.
Conclusion
The court ruled in favour of the father and recognised him as a natural guardian. This case
really brings out two really important aspect for custody cases for child . Firstly Habeas corpus
is something that applies in exceptional situations where there has been illegal detention.
Essentially this is a tool to ensure that people are not locked up against the law and they have
rights to contest that detention legally. In other situation, custody case would directly taken under
the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 rather than going through habeas corpus petitions
Secondly, while Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMGA), 1956,
recognizes the father as the natural guardian after death of the mother , this right is not absolute.
3
Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 S.C.C. 413 (India).
4
Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, (1984) 3 S.C.C. 698 (India).
5
Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 S.C.C. 840 (India).
The best thing for a child is always his wellbeing. So courts have an important role to play and
they must always think about things like whether custody arrangements will really help the child
emotionally, psychologically and socially and keep the child happy and healthy.
In this the high court has backed the father’s rights but also ensured stability
for the child and access to her mother’s family. It's a delightful compromise
that hits the middle between the really hard stuff of upbringing kids and
respecting that especially, family members need to cooperate and spend
time separately as mother and father In my opinion This ruling is done for
the best interests of children, which will be an important precedent in Indian
family law.
