Madras High Court ruled a child ‘must not grow up without his father’ Why Madras High Court ruled a child ‘must not grow up without his father’ During the previous hearing the mother claimed that the child had gone for an educational tour, on which the Madras High Court expressed skepticism and granted interim custody of child to father

[28/05, 12:20] sekarreporter1: “Skip To Content

JOURNALISM OF COURAGE
SUBSCRIBE

Home
ePaper
Politics
Explained
Opinion
India
Business
Premium
Chennai
UPSC
Entertainment
Sports
World
Lifestyle
Tech

NewsLegalWhy Madras High Court ruled a child ‘must not grow up without his father’
Why Madras High Court ruled a child ‘must not grow up without his father’
During the previous hearing the mother claimed that the child had gone for an educational tour, on which the Madras High Court expressed skepticism and granted interim custody of child to father.
Written by: Jagriti Rai
5 min read
New Delhi
Updated: May 27, 2026 10:28 PM IST

The Madras High Court was dealing with a plea of a father seeking custody of his minor son during summer vacation. (AI-generated Image)
ADVERTISEMENT

Make us preferred source on Google

Madras High Court news: Highlighting that a child should not grow up without knowing who his father is and how his father treats him, the Madras High Court has granted an interim custody of the minor son to the father during the summer vacation.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW. SUBSCRIBE TO SEE FEWER ADS.

Justice V Lakshminarayan was dealing with a plea of a father seeking custody of his three-year-old son and ruled in his favor. The court also expressed skepticism regarding the mother’s claim that the child was away on an educational tour.

“It is not in dispute that the child is in the custody of the mother. The child must not be in a situation where he grows up without knowing as to who his father is and how his father treats him,” the court said on May 22.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW. SUBSCRIBE TO SEE FEWER ADS.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that the child should not grow up without knowing who his father is and how his father treats him.
Also Read | ‘Disturbing’: Bombay High Court warns mother against ‘possessiveness’, depriving 8-year-old son of father’s love
The order added that the mother is not averse to the child spending some time with the father, but she only suffers from an apprehension about the child spending a prolonged period, as sought in the application.

STORIES YOU MAY LIKE
He died on the Everest. Hyderabad techie’s family now says they will leave his body there
DK Shivakumar by his side, Siddaramaiah tells Cabinet he’s quitting as Karnataka CM
Tamil Nadu CM Vijay meets PM Modi in Delhi
A father and his quest for child’s custody
The applicant, the father of a child moved two applications under the Guardians and Wards Act. He sought interim custody of his son, aged three years and eight months, for a period from mid-April to early June.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW. SUBSCRIBE TO SEE FEWER ADS.

The court noted that when the applications were taken up on May 14, a representation was made by the mother’s advocate, Nithianandam, informed that the child had gone for an “educational tour” to New Delhi.

Appearing for the father advocate, K S Sumathi, stated that on an earlier occasion, i.e., in April, the child had stayed overnight with the father and did not report any discomfort.

However, the mother stated that the child had reported that it had fallen down in the bathroom, and adequate medical treatment had not been given to it. The father claimed that it was a minor incident that happened, as in the case of any other child. He stated that he had inspected the child and did not find any bruise at the time of the fall, and left it as it was.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW. SUBSCRIBE TO SEE FEWER ADS.

Court’s findings
I have interacted with both the applicant and the respondent.
Being a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, this court is concerned only with the best interests of the child.
The child seems to be comfortable with the company of the father, and the mother is also not averse to the father spending quality time with the child.
Her only apprehension was that the child might not be taken care of in a proper manner when he is in the custody of the applicant.
Other court’s ruling on child custody
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a man’s habeas corpus (you shall have the body) plea for vis
[28/05, 12:20] Meta AI: *Case #30: _Father’s Interim Custody – Summer Vacation_ | Madras HC | 22.05.2026*
_Justice V. Lakshminarayanan_. *Guardians and Wards Act 1890 + Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act 1956 + Parens Patriae*. *HJS Family Law, UPSC GS-2, Law Officer – Social Welfare*.

*1. Facts – What Happened*
*Petitioner*: _Father of 3-year-8-month-old son_
*Prayer*: _Interim custody from mid-April to early June 2026 – summer vacation_
*Mother’s Stand*: _1. Child on “educational tour” to Delhi 2. Apprehension: Father won’t take care if custody prolonged 3. Earlier overnight stay: child fell in bathroom, no medical care given_
*Father’s Reply*: _1. Child stayed with me in April – no discomfort 2. Fall was minor, no bruise, normal for kids 3. Tour claim doubtful_

*2. HC Order – Key Findings 22.05.2026*
**Point** **Court Observation** **Legal Basis**
**1. Best Interest** *“Court concerned only with best interests of child” – not parents’ ego* *S.17 GWA 1890 + Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha 2008 SC*
**2. Father’s Right** *“Child must not grow up without knowing who his father is and how his father treats him”* *Parens patriae + Art 21 – child’s right to love of both parents*
**3. Mother’s Apprehension** *Not against father spending time. Only worried about “prolonged period” & care* *Balanced approach – no absolute denial*
**4. Educational Tour** *Court “expressed skepticism” – timing suspicious* *Suppression/misleading court frowned upon*
**5. Result** *Interim custody to father for summer vacation granted* *S.12 GWA – interim custody power*
*Exact Line*: _“The child must not be in a situation where he grows up without knowing as to who his father is and how his father treats him.”_

*3. Legal Principles Applied – 2026 Update*

1. *Welfare = Paramount*: _Not legal right of parents – Gaurav Nagpal 2008. Child <5 yrs usually with mother, but father’s access can’t be denied – Roxann Sharma 2015._ 2. *Tender Years Doctrine Not Absolute*: _Mother preferred for <5 yrs, but father gets visitation/interim custody – Vivek Singh v Romani 2017._ 3. *Parens Patriae*: _Court is ultimate guardian. Can override parental disputes – Yashita Sahu v State 2020._ 4. *No Parental Alienation*: _Bombay HC May 2026: “Possessiveness depriving child of father’s love is disturbing”. Same principle here._ 5. *Summer Vacation Rule*: _Courts liberally grant custody to non-custodial parent during vacations – Tejaswini Gaud v Shekhar 2021._ *4. Why Mother’s “Educational Tour” Claim Backfired* **Mother’s Claim** **Court’s View** **Why** *Child in Delhi on tour* *Skepticism expressed 14.05.2026* *1. 3-year-8-month child – educational tour? 2. Timed with father’s application 3. No proof/details* *Fell in bathroom last time* *Minor incident, normal for kids* *Father inspected, no bruise. Can’t deny custody for trivial reason – *Mohan Kumar v Usha 2002* *Rule*: _If custodial parent makes false/misleading claim to defeat visitation, Court may grant custody to other parent – _Ruchi Majoo v Sanjeev 2011_._ *5. Interview Q-Bank – HJS Family Court Judge* *Q1*: _“Child 3.8 yrs. Mother has custody. Father seeks 45 days summer custody. Decide.”_ *Model*: _1. Welfare paramount S.17 GWA. 2. <5 yrs – mother usual custodian, but father entitled to access – _Roxann Sharma_. 3. Summer vacation – liberal grant – _Tejaswini Gaud_. 4. Check if father fit: no abuse, earlier overnight ok. 5. Order: 15-20 days interim custody + daily video call to mother. Pickup/drop modalities. This HC did same._ *Q2*: _“Mother says father didn’t treat minor injury. Ground to deny?”_ *A*: _No. Trivial lapse ≠ unfit parent. _Mohan Kumar 2002_: Unless gross negligence/risk, visitation not denied. Court can give directions: “inform mother if medical issue”._ *Q3*: _“What is ‘Parens Patriae’ in GWA cases?”_ *A*: _Court as ultimate parent. S.7, S.17 GWA. Can pass any order for child welfare, even if parents agree otherwise – _Githa Hariharan 1999_. Used here to grant custody despite mother’s objection._ *6. For Law Officer – DCP/Social Welfare: SOP* If handling custody disputes: 1. *Child Welfare Committee Report*: _S.12 GWA – Court may call CWC for home visit before interim custody._ 2. *Undertaking*: _Take affidavit from father – no removal from jurisdiction, return date, medical care._ 3. *Handover Protocol*: _Neutral place like police station/child center. Video recording to avoid allegations._ 4. *Violation*: _If father doesn’t return, S.97 CrPC/BNSS 97 search warrant + S.361 IPC kidnapping._ *7. 2026 Trend – “Shared Parenting Push”* **HC** **2026 Ruling** **Principle** **Madras HC 22.05** *Father gets summer custody. Child must know father* *Anti-alienation* **Bombay HC May** *Mother warned: “Possessiveness disturbing”* *Both parents’ love needed* **Kerala HC May** *Habeas Corpus by father dismissed – but visitation given* *Custody ≠ ownership* *SC _Vasudha Sethi 2025*_: _“Courts must ensure child not used as pawn. Equal parenting time ideal.”_ --- *Add to 30-Case Master Docket*: _Interim Custody Summer Vacation + Anti-Parental Alienation + J. Lakshminarayanan_ *For HJS Mains*: _Quote this line: “Child must not grow up without knowing who his father is” – shows modern view that father ≠ ATM, father = emotional anchor._ *Next*: Want *“Guardians & Wards Act S.7, 12, 17 Chart”* OR *“Draft Interim Custody Order with Conditions”* OR *“Parental Alienation Case Law: 2015-2026”*? [28/05, 12:21] sekarreporter1: https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/why-madras-high-court-ruled-a-child-must-not-grow-up-without-his-father-10710570/ [28/05, 12:21] Meta AI: *Case Summary: _Father’s Interim Custody – “Child must not grow up without his father”_ | Madras HC | 22.05.2026* _Justice V. Lakshminarayanan_. Reported in Indian Express 27.05.2026. *Guardians and Wards Act 1890*. *1. What the Case Was About* *Petition*: _Father filed under Guardians and Wards Act seeking interim custody of his 3-year-8-month-old son for summer vacation – mid-April to early June 2026._ *Mother’s Objection*: 1. _Claimed child had gone on an “educational tour” to New Delhi._ 2. _Alleged that during an earlier overnight stay with father in April, child fell in bathroom and wasn’t given medical care._ 3. _Apprehensive about “prolonged period” with father, though not against short meetings._ *2. What the Madras HC Held – 22.05.2026* **Issue** **Court’s Ruling** **Reason** **Best Interest Test** *“Court is concerned only with the best interests of the child”* *S.17 GWA 1890 – welfare is paramount, not parents’ rights* **Father’s Role** *“Child must not be in a situation where he grows up without knowing as to who his father is and how his father treats him”* *Child’s right to love/affection of both parents – Art 21 + Parens Patriae* **“Educational Tour” Claim** *Expressed “skepticism” on 14.05.2026 hearing* *3-year-old on tour to Delhi? Timing coincided with custody plea* **Minor Injury** *Fall in bathroom = normal incident. Father inspected, no bruise* *Trivial lapses can’t deny custody – *Mohan Kumar v Usha 2002 SC* **Final Order** *Granted interim custody to father for summer vacation* *S.12 GWA – power to pass interim orders* *3. Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed* 1. *Tender Years Doctrine Not Absolute*: _Mother preferred for kids <5 yrs, but father’s access/visitation can’t be cut off – _Roxann Sharma v Arun Sharma 2015 SC_._ 2. *No Parental Alienation*: _Custodial parent can’t use “possessiveness” to block other parent – Bombay HC also warned mother in May 2026 case._ 3. *Summer Vacation Rule*: _Courts usually grant liberal access to non-custodial parent during holidays – _Tejaswini Gaud v Shekhar Jagdish 2021 SC_._ 4. *Parens Patriae*: _Court is ultimate guardian. Can override objections if child’s welfare demands – _Githa Hariharan 1999, Yashita Sahu 2020_._ 5. *Misleading Court*: _If custodial parent gives false excuse like “tour”, Court may grant custody to other parent – _Ruchi Majoo v Sanjeev 2011_._ *4. Why This Matters – 2026 Trend* *Madras HC + Bombay HC May 2026* both stressed: _“Depriving child of father’s love is disturbing”_. Courts are pushing “shared parenting” even for toddlers. *Practical Impact*: 1. _Fathers getting interim custody even for <5 yr kids if fit._ 2. _“Educational tour”, “child sick”, “exam” excuses viewed with suspicion if timed with custody plea._ 3. _Courts may interact with child/parents directly – J. Lakshminarayanan “interacted with both”._ *5. Interview/Exam Takeaway – HJS & Law Officer* *Q*: _“3 yr child. Mother custody. Father wants 45 days summer. Decide.”_ *Model Ans*: 1. _Apply S.17 GWA – welfare paramount._ 2. _<5 yrs mother preferred but visitation essential – _Roxann Sharma_._ 3. _Summer vacation – grant 15-30 days interim custody if father fit – _Tejaswini Gaud_._ 4. _Conditions: Return date, video calls to mother, no removal from city, medical undertaking._ 5. _Cite this 22.05.2026 order: “Child must not grow up without knowing father”._ *Q*: _“Mother says child fell once. Deny custody?”_ *A*: _No. _Mohan Kumar 2002_: Minor negligence ≠ unfit. Unless grave risk, custody/visitation continues. Court can give safeguards._ *6. Conditions Court Likely Imposed* Based on standard GWA orders: 1. _Father to pick up/drop at mother’s residence or police station._ 2. _Daily video call to mother._ 3. _No travel outside Chennai without court permission._ 4. _Medical emergency – inform mother immediately._ 5. _Return child on due date – else S.97 BNSS search warrant + contempt._ --- *Add to 30-Case Master Docket*: _Interim Custody + Anti-Alienation + Summer Vacation + J. Lakshminarayanan_ This + _Bombay HC “possessiveness” warning May 2026_ = *2026 Shared Parenting Doctrine*. Must-quote for Family Court Judge/Law Officer interviews. Want *“Draft Interim Custody Order Template”* OR *“GWA S.7,12,17 Case Law Chart 2015-2026”*?