In a significant ruling on child custody rights, the Bombay High Court has clarified that grandparents cannot retain custody of a minor solely on the basis of emotional attachment, as such attachment does not create any “superior” legal right over the biological parents.

 

The judgment came on September 4, 2025, when a Division Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his minor son.

 

The petitioner and his wife were blessed with twin boys on November 12, 2019. After the petitioner replaced his father in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) upon the latter’s retirement, the family mutually decided that one child would remain with the grandparents while the other would stay with the biological parents.

 

However, relations between the parents and grandparents later soured, prompting the parents to live separately. When the grandparents refused to return custody of one of the twins, the father approached the High Court.

 

The bench made strong remarks reinforcing the legal primacy of biological parents in custody disputes:

• Natural Guardianship: “The Petitioner being the biological father and natural guardian has an undisputed legal right to claim custody of his child,” the court observed.

• No Superior Rights for Grandparents: The grandmother’s claim that the father was emotionally and financially incapable of raising the child was rejected. The court held that mere emotional bonds do not override the legal rights of natural guardians.

• Welfare of the Child Paramount: The judges underlined that parental rights may only be curtailed if it is proven that remaining with the parents would be detrimental to the child’s welfare.

• No Marital Discord or Incapacity: The court took note of the fact that there was no marital dispute between the parents, and the father was gainfully employed with the BMC. Furthermore, the other twin—who suffers from cerebral palsy—was already being cared for by the parents.

• Grandmother’s Limitations: The court emphasized that the grandmother, aged 74, had no legal entitlement to custody, especially since she had herself filed a complaint seeking maintenance from the petitioner.

 

The bench categorically stated:

 

 

Final Order

 

Accordingly, the bench directed the grandmother to immediately hand over custody of the minor to his biological parents.