Special Bond Between Grandmother And Grandchildren Cannot Replace The Bond Between Natural Parents And Children

Coverage of this Article

KEY TAKEAWAYS

-The bond between grandparents and grandchildren, however precious, cannot be a substitute for the bond between natural parents and children.

OVERVIEW

-The custody of a 12-year old was sought by the grandmother of the child who refused to part with him even when the natural parents of the child wanted him to come and live with them. On non-cooperation of the grandmother in the said request, the parents of such child had moved the High Court of Bombay in order to obtain a legal order to enforce the grandmother of the child to part from her.

BACKGROUND

-The mother of a 12 year old was sick and had to undergo an operation. When she was sick and advised to take bedrest by the doctors after such operation, sought help of her own mother and shifted with her child to her mother’s place is Nashik in 2019.

FURTHER DETAILS

-In order to attempt an admission of the child near their place of residence, the parents went to the maternal house of the mother of the child so that they could bring their son back to stay with them.

CONCLUSION

-In the case where the biological parents of a 12 year old child claimed the custody of the boy from his maternal grandmother, the bench comprising Justices S. S. Shinde and Manish Pitale commented,

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The bond between grandparents and grandchildren, however precious, cannot be a substitute for the bond between natural parents and children.
• Custody of children is granted in the best interests of the child in question.
• The financial stability and educational background of the prospective guardian also plays a huge role in the grant of such custody.
• The ordinary comfort of the child, his contentment, health, education, physical, moral and intellectual development, upbringing and well-being, as also his future certainly lies with the biological parents of such child.
• The custody of a child is to be given to his biological parents unless the parents are proven to be incapable of taking care of the child and contributing to his development and well-being.

OVERVIEW

The custody of a 12-year old was sought by the grandmother of the child who refused to part with him even when the natural parents of the child wanted him to come and live with them. On non-cooperation of the grandmother in the said request, the parents of such child had moved the High Court of Bombay in order to obtain a legal order to enforce the grandmother of the child to part from her.

The Bench comprising Justice S. S. Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale, granted the custody of the child to his parents and held that “while there is a special bond between a grandmother and her grandchild, it cannot replace the natural bond between the child and his biological parents.” The contention of the grandmother was not agreed to by the Court in this regard.

The Court further held that “the ordinary comfort of the child, his contentment, health, education, physical, moral and intellectual development, upbringing and well-being, as also his future certainly lies with his parents.”

BACKGROUND

The mother of a 12 year old was sick and had to undergo an operation. When she was sick and advised to take bedrest by the doctors after such operation, sought help of her own mother and shifted with her child to her mother’s place is Nashik in 2019. There was nobody to look after them and take care of the child and the ailing woman in their original place of residence, since the father of the child was too busy with his professional commitments to indulge in caring and supervision of an ailing person and a child in his formative years.

The child was admitted to an international school while they were staying there in the mother’s maternal home in Nashik under the care and supervision of the grandmother of the child.

After the mother recovered from her ailment and was ready to return to her matrimonial home, so that the child could be admitted to a school near their residence for the academic year 2020-21, due to the outbreak of the Covid19 pandemic they had to stay back in Nashik.

Even though the mother of the child returned to Pune on May 2020, the 12-year-old child stayed back at his maternal grandmother’s place attending the online classes of the school as a part of their curriculum. It was during the stay of the child with his grandmother that they developed a bond between them.

Later, when the natural parents of the child went to Nashik to bring back the child so that he could come and stay with them, the grandmother refused to part with her grandson. The bond between them was too special for the grandmother to let go of and she was unwilling to let it go under any circumstances.

FURTHER DETAILS

In order to attempt an admission of the child near their place of residence, the parents went to the maternal house of the mother of the child so that they could bring their son back to stay with them. Their stay at Nashik was a temporary arrangement that was made in order to facilitate the care extended to the ailing mother and her son.

The grandmother, on the claim of the parents of the child to come and stay with them, refused to part with the 12-year-old, and sought help from her local Police Station and the Child Welfare Committee. She went on to claim that there were matrimonial disputes between her daughter and son-in-law, which might prove detrimental to the psychological health and growth of the child and would for sure adversely affect the child.

The couple, who were totally unprepared for such a reaction, then moved the Bombay High Court to claim custody for their child where the Court agreed with their contention and ordered the grandmother to part with her teenage grandson.

The Bombay High Court based their ruling on the recognition of the fact that the special bond shared between a grandmother and her grandson, though special, cannot replace the natural bond between the parents and their child.

The Bombay High Court also weighed the fact that the father of the child was financially stable, educated and was an educated person holding the post of Senior Engineer at a reputed Multi-national Company (MNC) while the grandmother was not of sound financial condition and was not very educated either.

It is of utmost importance that the custody of the child be given to someone is who is financially secure and stable enough to look after the requirements of the child, be it health, education, or other day to day monetary requirements. The educational background of the guardian is also verified so that the formative years of the child is in good hands, who can guide such child about his way of life, mentality, career and other life choices.

CONCLUSION

In the case where the biological parents of a 12 year old child claimed the custody of the boy from his maternal grandmother, the bench comprising Justices S. S. Shinde and Manish Pitale commented, "the paramount consideration in such cases is welfare of the minor child. For reaching a conclusion regarding the welfare of the child include ethical upbringing, economic well-being of the guardian, the overall comfort of the child, contentment, health, education, physical mental and his intellectual development."

Considering that, the Court denied the custody of grandson to the grandmother, and said "There can be no doubt about the fact that there is a special bond between a grandmother and her grandchild, but it cannot substitute the natural bond of parents with their child."

The HC accordingly, handed over the custody of a 12-year-old boy to his biological parents and refused to send him back to his grandmother.

A bench of Justices Sambhaji Shinde and Manish Pitale upheld the contention of the natural parents of the 12-year-old child in the case.