Child custody disputes are among the most emotionally charged legal battles. Courts are required to balance the natural rights of biological parents with the emotional and psychological welfare of the child. A recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pravin Nathalal Parghi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 2374 of 2025, decided on September 4, 2025) has once again reinforced the principle that while grandparents or relatives may share a strong emotional bond with a child, such attachment cannot supersede the legal and natural guardianship rights of biological parents.
This article examines the judgment in detail, its factual background, the arguments raised, the principles applied, and its implications for child custody jurisprudence in India.
Factual Background
The case revolved around custody of five-year-old twin boys born to the petitioner, Pravin Nathalal Parghi, and his wife through surrogacy on November 12, 2019.
- One twin, Mst. Lakshya Parghi, who suffers from cerebral palsy, has been living with the petitioner and his wife.
- The other twin, Mst. Lavya Parghi, has since birth remained in the custody of the petitioner’s mother (Respondent No. 5).
Key Developments:
Initial Custody Arrangement:
At birth, both children suffered health complications. With the petitioner’s consent, one child (Lavya) stayed with his grandmother for better care.
Post-COVID Disputes:
After the pandemic restrictions eased, disputes arose between the petitioner and his parents.
Legal Proceedings:
- The petitioner filed custody petitions before the Family Court under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
- The grandmother filed an FIR against the petitioner and his brother under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Habeas Corpus Petition:
As the grandmother refused to hand over custody, the petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus before the Bombay High Court, seeking restoration of custody.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions
- He is the biological father and natural guardian under the law.
- There is no marital discord between him and his wife.
- He is gainfully employed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
- The twins should not be separated, and the child Lavya must be reunited with his parents and twin brother.
- Respondent No. 5 (grandmother) has no superior right in law to retain custody.
- Habeas Corpus jurisdiction can be invoked in child custody disputes in exceptional circumstances.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents:
Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Tiwari (2019) 7 SCC 42
Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi (2024 INSC 610)
Respondents’ Submissions
- The child has been in the exclusive care of the grandmother since birth and is emotionally attached to her.
- At the time of birth, the parents had allegedly described the twins as a “burden” and declined custody.
- The parents are financially and emotionally incapable of caring for both children.
- The petitioner’s real motive is to gain access to the grandmother’s property.
- The petition was filed nearly five years after birth, indicating mala fides.
- Since custody proceedings are pending in the Family Court, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised.
- Relied on Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42.
Issues
- Can a writ of Habeas Corpus be entertained in a custody matter when proceedings are already pending under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Do emotional bonds with grandparents override the rights of biological parents to custody?
- What is the paramount consideration in custody disputes: parental rights or the welfare of the child?
Court’s Analysis
1. Habeas Corpus in Custody Matters
The Bench (Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad) relied on the principle that Habeas Corpus can be invoked when a child is unlawfully detained by a person not entitled to custody under law.
Citing Tejaswini Gaud (2019), the Court noted that detention by a person without legal right is treated as illegal detention for the purposes of Habeas Corpus.
Even if the Guardians and Wards Act provides remedies, writ jurisdiction can be exercised in exceptional cases
2. Rights of Biological Parents
- The petitioner, as the natural guardian, had an undisputed legal right to custody unless shown to be unfit.
- There was no evidence of unfitness—he was employed, married, and already caring for his other child with a disability.
- Emotional bonds with grandparents, though significant, do not confer legal guardianship rights.
3. Welfare of the Child
- The Court emphasised that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
- Separating the twins was not in their best interest.
- Property disputes and family discord could not deprive the parents of custody.
- At 74 years, the grandmother herself had sought maintenance from the petitioner, indicating that long-term custody with her was not sustainable
Judgment
The Court held:
- Custody must be restored to the biological father (petitioner).
- Directed police authorities to secure custody of Mst. Lavya Parghi from the grandmother and hand him over within two weeks.
- To ensure smooth transition:
(i) The grandmother was granted visitation rights at the father’s residence on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. for three months.
(ii) The father was directed not to obstruct such meetings.
(iii) Both parties could approach the Family Court for further directions if needed.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Gautam A. Ankhad and Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge stated:
In the present case, while the custody of the son (one of the twins) rests with the Petitioner, the custody of his other son remains with Respondent No. 5. In our view, the Petitioner being the biological father and natural guardian, has an undisputed legal right to claim custody of his child. The contention of Respondent No. 5 that the Petitioner is emotionally and financially incapable of caring for the twins cannot be accepted.
Custody cannot be denied on the basis of these allegations. The wife of the Petitioner, mother of the said child, is living together with the Petitioner. Though Respondent No. 5 may share an emotional bond with the child, such attachment does not confer upon her a superior right to custody over that of the biological parent. While due regard must be given to the rights of the father and mother as the natural guardian, such rights may be curtailed only if it is shown that his custody would be detrimental to the child’s welfare.
Key Precedents Considered
- Gohar Begam v. Suggi (AIR 1960 SC 93): Custody of an illegitimate child given to mother; refusal by relatives amounted to illegal detention.
- Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar Kapoor (1981) 3 SCC 92: Habeas Corpus maintainable in custody disputes between natural guardians.
- Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Tiwari (2019) 7 SCC 42: Writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional custody cases.
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42: Welfare of the child is paramount.
- Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi (2024 INSC 610): Custody restored to biological father despite child staying with relatives
Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning
- Reinforcement of Parental Rights: The judgment reaffirms that biological parents are the primary custodians of children under Indian law. Grandparents, despite emotional closeness, cannot claim custody unless the parents are proved unfit.
- Emotional Bonds v. Legal Rights: The Court carefully distinguished between emotional attachment and legal entitlement. While acknowledging the bond between the grandmother and the child, it held that such attachment cannot override statutory rights of parents.
- Balancing Welfare with Legal Rights: By granting visitation rights to the grandmother, the Court balanced both—preserving the child’s welfare and emotional ties while restoring parental custody.
- Exceptional Use of Habeas Corpus: The case is a reminder that Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy and will be entertained only when custody amounts to illegal detention.
Implications of the Judgment
For Parents
- Parents who voluntarily place children with relatives for temporary care do not lose custody rights.
- They can reclaim custody unless proven unfit.
For Grandparents
- Grandparents may play a vital role, but their rights are subordinate to parents’.
- Courts may grant visitation or contact rights, but not primary custody unless exceptional circumstances exist.
For Child Welfare Jurisprudence
- The ruling strengthens the principle that the welfare of the child = care of biological parents, unless proven harmful.
- It discourages using property disputes or family conflicts as grounds to withhold custody from parents.
Conclusion
Bombay High Court’s judgment in Pravin Nathalal Parghi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) establishes that emotional attachment of grandparents, however strong, cannot override the custody rights of biological parents.
By restoring custody to the father while granting visitation to the grandmother, the Court struck a balance between parental rights and child welfare. Importantly, it emphasised that custody disputes must not become proxies for property battles or family rivalries.
The ruling reinforces a consistent judicial approach: the welfare of the child is paramount, but within that framework, the natural guardians—the parents—hold the primary right to custody.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams