News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 55
Bilaspur, January 14, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld a Family Court order refusing to hand over the custody of a minor child to his father, ruling that the child’s overall welfare must prevail over financial capacity or statutory guardianship claims.
The decision came in a first appeal filed by Laxmikant Joshi, who had challenged the April 2022 judgment of the Family Court in Bemetara. The Family Court had dismissed his application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of his seven-year-old son. The appeal was heard and dismissed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, with the judgment delivered on January 14, 2026.
The case arose from matrimonial discord between the parties, who were married in 2013 and have two sons. After disputes escalated, the younger child remained with the mother, while the elder son initially stayed with the father. In November 2021, following proceedings at the Sakhi One Stop Center in Durg, the elder child was handed over to the mother. The father then approached the Family Court seeking custody, arguing that he was better placed financially to care for the child.
The mother opposed the plea, alleging that the father was living with another woman as his second wife without obtaining a divorce. This allegation became central to the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. Evidence on record, including the father’s own admissions during cross-examination, showed that he was cohabiting with the woman and had even stated before authorities that he had married her.
While Section 6 of the 1956 Act recognizes the father as the natural guardian of a minor boy, the High Court reiterated that this right is not absolute. Referring to Section 13 of the same Act and a long line of Supreme Court precedents, the Bench emphasized that the welfare of the child, including moral, emotional, and psychological well-being, must always be the paramount consideration.
The judges noted that financial superiority alone cannot decide custody disputes. They observed that the child was living in a stable and affectionate environment with his mother and that there was no certainty he would receive similar emotional security if placed in a household where the father was living with a stepmother. The court also took into account Supreme Court rulings which hold that a parent’s second marriage, while not an automatic disqualification, is a relevant factor when assessing the best interests of a child.
Concluding that the Family Court had exercised its discretion correctly, the High Court found no merit in the appeal. The order rejecting the father’s custody claim was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
Case Reference : First Appeal (MAT) No. 87 of 2022, Laxmikant Joshi, Bemetara vs Lokeshwari @ Parmeshwari and Another; Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate.