Aurangabad | July 21, 2025
In a landmark ruling that prioritizes a child’s emotional security over rigid legal tradition, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has granted custody of a 9-year-old Muslim boy to his mother, observing that the child’s well-being must take precedence over religious personal laws.
The Court made it clear: a child is not a legal commodity governed strictly by custom, but a human being whose happiness must be central to any custody decision.
Custody Tug-of-War: Mother vs. Personal Law
In this case, the father had approached the court asserting that under Muslim personal law, a father becomes the rightful custodian of a male child once he turns seven. The Family Court had agreed and awarded custody to the father.
However, the mother challenged the ruling, arguing that the child was emotionally dependent on her and would suffer distress if removed from her care. She also pointed out that the child had been living with her for a substantial period post-divorce and was thriving under her guardianship.
Court Steps In – “Child’s Happiness Is Paramount”
Justice Shailesh Brahme, who presided over the case, personally interacted with the child in chambers before delivering his judgment. The judge noted that the child clearly felt safe, happy, and emotionally secure with his mother.
“The emotional comfort and daily stability that the mother offers cannot be disregarded simply because personal law says otherwise,” the Court said in its ruling.
The Court overturned the earlier decision of the Family Court and held that strict application of religious personal laws cannot override the constitutional obligation to protect a child’s best interest.
Judgment in Focus: A Shift Toward Child-Centric Justice
This verdict reiterates a powerful message: Courts are not bound to enforce personal laws when they are in direct conflict with the best interest of a child.
Key takeaways:
• Emotional bonds matter more than legal entitlement.
• Parental comfort outweighs doctrinal age-based rules.
• The welfare of the child must be the sole and central concern.
Case Title: KSIQ vs. IAQ (First Appeal No. 348 of 2024)
