[Child custody] No amount of wealth or mother like love can take place of mother's love and care: Punjab & Haryana High Court

With rather piquant remarks, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated the position of law that a mother is entitled to the custody of a child below five years of age. (Mandeep Kaur v. State of Haryana)."The lap of the mother is the natural cradle where the safety and welfare of the infant can be assured and there is no substitute for the same. Mother's protection for the infant is indispensable and no other protection will be equal in measure and substance to the same. No amount of wealth or mother like love can take place of mother's love and care. Motherly care and affection is indispensable for the healthy growth of the infants."Punjab and Haryana High Court.A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi was a hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by a woman who sought the custody of her 3-year-old daughter, after her husband and her parted ways..There were differences between the two, which was first settled with the involvement of local Panchayat members. After this, when the couple decided to live together, the woman's husband and his mother urged her to invite her parents over to stay in the house for a few days. .Stating that they were going out of station, they are stated to have used the opportunity to file a complaint for theft against the woman and her parents, following which the woman was arrested. After she was released on bail, she beseeched her husband and mother-in-law to allow her custody over the child, but they refused..Aggrieved, she filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court seeking custody of her child..The Court was required to decide between:A father's statutory position as a natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 6), and;A mother's custody over her child, especially since the child was below 5 years of age (Section 6(a) of the Act)..The woman's husband had voiced opposition to the habeas corpus petition stating that:he was the natural guardian, there was no illegality in his custody of the child, and thatthe woman was not fit to take custody of the child, since her father was accused of theft and there were subsisting matrimonial disputes in her brother's home..Deciding that the child's custody rightfully devolved on the petitioner-woman in terms of Section 6(a) of the Act, the Court refused to discuss the other allegations made against the petitioner by her husband. .Noting that she had the wherewithal to maintain herself and her child, the Court granted her interim custody over her daughter, till the question of custody is decided by the Guardian/Family Court. .The father was given visitation rights and liberty to move the Guardian/Family Court for custody of the minor daughter. .The Court added that if such a plea is moved, the Guardian/Family Court shall decide the question of custody uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court by taking into consideration the welfare and best of interests of the child..Read the Judgment here: