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