Question

It is well settled that while taking a decision regarding custody or other issues pertaining to a child, welfare of the child is of paramount consideration, not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, [(1973) 1 SCC 840], the Court held that object and purpose of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is not merely physical custody of the minor but due protection of the rights of ward’s health, maintenance and education. In considering the question of welfare of minor, due regard has to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian, but if the custody of the father cannot promote the welfare of the children, he may be refused such guardianship. The word “welfare” has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. Every child has right to proper health and education and it is the primary duty of the parents to ensure that child gets proper education. The courts in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction have to decide such delicate questions. It has to consider the welfare of the child as of paramount importance taking into consideration other aspects of the matter including the rights of parents also