THE LEGAL BRIDGE

thelegalbridge.in

Custody of Children — Section 26 HMA and Related Provisions

Topic 24 | Module 2: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | The Legal Bridge

For Judicial Service Aspirants: RJS | DJS | PCS-J | HJS | APO

Comprehensive Study Notes with Landmark Case Laws, Mnemonics & Exam Tips

Custody of Children — Section 26 HMA and Related Provisions

Relevant Provisions: Section 26 HMA | Section 6 HMGA | Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Priority: HIGH | Exam Relevance: RJS / DJS / PCS-J / HJS / University Exams (FREQUENTLY TESTED)

1. Introduction

Custody of children is often the most EMOTIONALLY CHARGED and practically complex aspect of matrimonial litigation. When a marriage breaks down, the question of who will have custody of the children — and what role the non-custodial parent will play — becomes paramount. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides the principal statutory framework for custody matters arising out of HMA proceedings. This provision must be read alongside Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — together, these statutes provide a comprehensive (though sometimes overlapping) framework for the protection of children's interests.

The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE governing custody under all these statutes is the WELFARE OF THE CHILD — not the abstract rights of parents, the religious personal law preferences, or the wishes of the parties. Indian courts, influenced by international child welfare jurisprudence, have consistently held that the child's welfare is the PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION. All other factors — parental rights, custom, religion, personal preferences — are subordinate to this overriding principle. The Supreme Court in landmark decisions such as Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) has emphatically reaffirmed this principle.

This topic is FREQUENTLY TESTED in examinations. Questions commonly focus on: (a) the scope of Section 26 HMA; (b) the 'welfare of the child' principle; (c) different forms of custody — physical, legal, joint, sole; (d) factors courts consider; (e) the rights of non-custodial parent — visitation, access; (f) interstate and international custody disputes; (g) the interplay between HMA S.26, HMGA S.6, and the Guardians and Wards Act; (h) the tender years doctrine and modern approaches; (i) children's own preferences. A thorough understanding of this area is essential.

2. Text of Section 26

Section 26 HMA provides:

"In any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made."

"Provided that the application with respect to the maintenance and education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent."

3. Nature and Scope of Section 26

3.1 Scope

Section 26 applies to ALL proceedings under HMA — restitution (S.9), judicial separation (S.10), nullity (S.11, S.12), divorce (S.13), and mutual consent divorce (S.13B). The court's power extends to:

• Interim orders during pendency of the main matrimonial proceeding.
• Provisions in the main decree.
• Post-decree orders on application.
• Revocation, suspension, or variation of prior orders.

3.2 Types of Orders Under S.26

1. Custody: Legal custody (decision-making authority), physical custody (where child lives), joint custody, visitation arrangements.
2. Maintenance: Financial support of the child — education, food, shelter, medical care.
3. Education: Decisions on schooling, higher education, and related costs.

3.3 Minor Children Only

Section 26 covers only MINOR children. Under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the age of majority is 18 (or 21 where a guardian has been appointed). Once a child attains majority, Section 26 orders cannot continue — though the child may have separate rights (e.g., maintenance of unmarried adult daughter under S.125 CrPC/S.144 BNSS until marriage).

3.4 Consistent with Wishes — Child's Preference

Section 26 provides that the court's orders should be 'consistently with their wishes, wherever possible.' The child's own wishes are a relevant (though not determinative) factor. Courts typically:

• Interview older children (especially over 9-12 years) in appropriate cases.
• Consider the maturity and understanding of the child.
• Weigh the child's preference against other welfare factors.
• Recognise that children's wishes may be influenced by the custodial parent.

3.5 60-Day Disposal Target

The proviso requires that applications for MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION of minor children pending the matrimonial proceeding should, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, be disposed of within SIXTY DAYS. This reflects the urgency of children's needs.

4. PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION: WELFARE OF THE CHILD

4.1 The Guiding Principle

The WELFARE OF THE CHILD is the paramount consideration in ALL custody decisions. This principle derives from:

• Section 13 HMGA: Welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointment of guardian.
• Section 17 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: In appointing guardian, court considers welfare of minor.
• Judicial interpretation: Courts have consistently placed welfare above parental rights, religion, custom.
• International law: UN Convention on Rights of the Child reinforces welfare principle.

4.2 Components of 'Welfare'

Welfare is a holistic concept covering:

1. Physical welfare: Safety, health, nutrition, shelter, freedom from abuse or neglect.
2. Emotional welfare: Loving environment, emotional bonds, stability, freedom from distress.
3. Educational welfare: Access to quality education, continuity of schooling, support for development.
4. Material welfare: Adequate financial resources for upbringing.
5. Moral and spiritual welfare: Exposure to appropriate values, ethical upbringing.
6. Social welfare: Relationships with extended family, friends, community.
7. Long-term welfare: Consideration of child's future, not just immediate needs.

4.3 Factors Courts Consider

In determining what serves welfare, courts consider:

1. Age and sex of the child: Very young children especially benefit from maternal care (tender years doctrine); older children's wishes given more weight.
2. Parents' character and circumstances: Moral character, mental and physical health, lifestyle, any history of abuse or neglect.
3. Parents' capacity to care: Time available, financial means, support system, skills for caring.
4. Existing living arrangements: Stability, disruption minimised where possible.
5. Siblings' interests: Keeping siblings together where possible.
6. Child's own wishes: Based on maturity and independent formation.
7. Educational considerations: Continuity of schooling, quality of education.
8. Cultural and religious factors: Relevant but not determinative — subordinate to welfare.
9. History of care: Who has been the primary caregiver.
10. Proximity to extended family: Grandparents, cousins, family networks.

4.4 What is NOT Determinative

• Personal law preferences: Even if personal law favours father's natural guardianship, welfare overrides.
• Parental 'rights' in abstract: Custody is not a reward for parents but a framework for child's welfare.
• Financial superiority alone: Wealthier parent does not automatically win; welfare is broader than money.
• Mere preference of one parent: Courts look beyond party preferences to objective welfare.
• Gender stereotypes: Modern approach rejects rigid gender-based presumptions beyond early infancy.

5. TYPES OF CUSTODY

5.1 Physical Custody (Actual Custody)

Physical custody determines WHERE the child lives on a daily basis and who provides direct care. Can be:

• Sole physical custody: Child lives with one parent; the other has visitation.
• Shared/joint physical custody: Child spends substantial time with both parents — alternating weeks, months, or similar arrangements.

5.2 Legal Custody

Legal custody is the right to make MAJOR DECISIONS for the child — education, medical care, religion, lifestyle choices. Can be:

• Sole legal custody: One parent makes all major decisions.
• Joint legal custody: Both parents share decision-making, even if one has physical custody.

5.3 Combinations

5.4 Visitation and Access

The NON-CUSTODIAL parent typically has rights of VISITATION or ACCESS — the right to meet and spend time with the child. Common arrangements:

• Weekly or alternate weekend visitation.
• Half of school holidays.
• Specific occasions (birthdays, festivals).
• Phone/video contact.
• Supervised visitation (where concerns about safety).
• Overnight vs day-only visits.

6. TENDER YEARS DOCTRINE

6.1 The Doctrine

The TENDER YEARS DOCTRINE holds that children of tender years (typically under 5-7 years) are generally best cared for by their mother, unless she is unfit. The doctrine is based on:

• Biological maternal bonding from birth and infancy.
• Breastfeeding and early childcare needs.
• Traditional patterns of primary caregiving.
• Developmental psychology on early childhood attachment.

6.2 In Indian Law

The tender years doctrine is REFLECTED in Indian law:

• Section 6(a) HMGA: The natural guardian of a legitimate minor son or daughter is the FATHER, but 'the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ORDINARILY be with the mother.'
• Judicial recognition: Supreme Court in Gaurav Nagpal and subsequent cases has recognised the tender years preference — though as one factor subordinated to overall welfare.

6.3 Modern Nuances

The tender years doctrine is not absolute:

• Applies only in the absence of contrary indications.
• A father can obtain custody of very young children if mother is unfit, incapable, or if he provides genuinely better welfare.
• The principle focuses on child's welfare — not a mother's 'right'.
• Modern decisions are gender-neutral where factors are balanced.

7. INTERPLAY WITH HMGA AND GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT

7.1 HMGA — Section 6

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides:

"The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are — (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl — the FATHER, and AFTER HIM, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or illegitimate unmarried girl — the MOTHER, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl — the husband..."

7.2 'After Him' — Githa Hariharan Case

In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228, the Supreme Court gave an IMPORTANT interpretation of the phrase 'after him' in Section 6(a). The Court held that 'after him' does NOT mean only after the father's death — it can also include situations where the father is ABSENT (physically, mentally, or due to neglect of responsibility). A mother can be the natural guardian even during father's lifetime in such circumstances. This was a progressive interpretation promoting gender equality.

7.3 Section 13 HMGA — Welfare Paramount

Section 13 HMGA provides: 'In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration.' This overrides any personal law preference.

7.4 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

This is a secular law applicable to all religions. Under S.17, in appointing a guardian:

• Welfare of minor is paramount.
• Consider age, sex, religion, character and capacity of proposed guardian, minor's relationship with proposed guardian.
• For minor old enough to form intelligent preference, consider their preference.

7.5 Relationship Between Statutes

8. LANDMARK CASES ON CUSTODY

⚖️ Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42

Ratio: LANDMARK modern case on custody. Supreme Court held: (1) Welfare of the child is the PARAMOUNT consideration; (2) All other considerations — parental rights, personal law, custom — are SUBORDINATE to welfare; (3) Tender years preference for mother exists but is not absolute; (4) Courts must consider the child's total well-being — physical, emotional, intellectual, moral; (5) Consistent with the child's wishes where appropriate. This case is widely cited as modern authority on custody principles.

⚖️ Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228

Ratio: LANDMARK on interpretation of S.6(a) HMGA. The phrase 'after him' includes the father's ABSENCE — not only death. Mother can be natural guardian even during father's lifetime where father is absent (physically, mentally, or in terms of active care). Progressive interpretation promoting women's equality in guardianship.

⚖️ Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015) 8 SCC 318

Ratio: Supreme Court on INTERNATIONAL custody disputes. A child taken outside India in violation of a custody order — principles of 'comity of courts' and child's welfare guide decisions. In this case, wife took children to USA; husband obtained custody order there. Court discussed balance between Indian law and foreign orders, always with welfare as paramount.

⚖️ Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali (2019) 7 SCC 311

Ratio: Supreme Court on custody of children of parents in different jurisdictions. Paramount consideration is welfare. Child's views given weight at appropriate age. Courts must balance continuity, stability, and best interests.

⚖️ Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413

Ratio: Supreme Court held that custody matters require NOT a mechanical application of rules but nuanced assessment of welfare in each case. Child's preference given weight at appropriate age. Gradual transitions may sometimes be better than abrupt changes.

⚖️ Sheila B. Das v. P.R. Sugasree (2006) 3 SCC 62

Ratio: SC on custody of young children. Tender years doctrine applied — young child ordinarily benefits from maternal care. But not absolute — if mother is unfit or unable, father can have custody even of very young child. Welfare-based approach.

⚖️ Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli (2008) 7 SCC 673

Ratio: SC held that the child's preference is a VALID consideration once they reach age of discretion. Typically 9-12 years onwards. Child's wishes are not determinative but given significant weight along with welfare.

⚖️ Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) 3 SCC 231

Ratio: Supreme Court on CHANGE of custody. Existing custody arrangements should not be disturbed lightly. Change must be based on clear evidence of welfare needs — not mere convenience. Stability is itself a welfare factor.

⚖️ Smt. Chethana Ramatheertha v. Kumar V. Jahgirdar (2003) 7 SCC 546

Ratio: SC discussed maintenance aspect of S.26. Court's jurisdiction extends to maintenance of child; continuing orders possible; 60-day disposal target reflects urgency.

⚖️ Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42

Ratio: Recent SC case — welfare of child trumps all. Even where personal law or earlier orders suggest particular custody, courts must assess current welfare. Courts should not be mechanical.

9. INTERIM CUSTODY

9.1 Power Under S.26

Courts can pass INTERIM orders during pendency of matrimonial proceedings. Interim custody is typically granted:

• To the parent with whom the child is currently living, if arrangements are satisfactory.
• To the primary caregiver.
• With visitation for the other parent.
• Subject to review as proceedings continue.

9.2 Relationship with Final Custody

Interim custody is NOT binding on final custody determination. However:

• Continuity and stability are welfare factors — long interim arrangements may be hard to disturb.
• If interim arrangements work well, final order may continue them.
• Interim periods provide opportunity to assess fitness of both parents.

10. VISITATION AND ACCESS

10.1 General Principles

• Right of non-custodial parent: Visitation is generally recognised as a right unless there are strong reasons to deny.
• Right of child: Child has right to meaningful relationship with both parents (where possible).
• Balanced arrangements: Courts craft arrangements balancing child's stability with both parents' involvement.
• Flexibility: Arrangements may be varied based on child's age, changes in circumstances.

10.2 Restrictions and Supervised Visitation

Courts may restrict visitation or require supervision where:

• History of abuse or neglect by non-custodial parent.
• Substance abuse or serious mental health issues.
• Risk of abduction (especially in international contexts).
• Child expresses genuine fear or distress.
• Non-custodial parent has been absent for very long periods.

10.3 Denial of Visitation

Complete denial of visitation is RARE and requires compelling reasons:

• Serious risk of harm to child.
• Extreme parental alienation or manipulation.
• Proven sexual abuse or violence.
• Child's firm, mature refusal based on genuine reasons.

11. INTERNATIONAL AND CROSS-BORDER CUSTODY

11.1 Increasingly Common

With increasing migration, international custody disputes have become more common. Scenarios include:

• One parent taking child to foreign country against other's wishes.
• Foreign court orders on custody not automatically recognised in India.
• Indian court orders may not be enforceable abroad.
• Conflicting orders in different jurisdictions.

11.2 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

INDIA IS NOT A SIGNATORY to the Hague Convention. This creates complications in international abduction cases. Indian courts apply:

• Welfare principle — paramount.
• Comity of courts — considering foreign orders as one factor.
• Best interests rather than mechanical return of child.
• Case-by-case assessment.

11.3 Notable Cases

• Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015): USA custody dispute — Supreme Court balanced foreign order with Indian welfare considerations.
• Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011): Mother brought child back from USA — Court examined welfare, custody history; returned child after weighing multiple factors.
• V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India (2010): SC discussed 'principle of comity of courts' in international custody matters.

12. CHILD ABDUCTION AND WRONGFUL REMOVAL

12.1 Legal Remedies

If one parent removes child in violation of custody orders:

• Contempt of court: For disobedience of custody orders.
• Writ of habeas corpus: To produce the child before court.
• Kidnapping charges: Under BNS provisions (formerly IPC).
• Police assistance: For enforcement of court orders.

12.2 International Abduction

Where child is taken abroad:

• Diplomatic and consular channels.
• Foreign court proceedings.
• Interpol for tracking.
• Hague Convention countries have streamlined procedures (but India is not signatory).

13. MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN

13.1 Section 26 HMA

Courts can order maintenance of children as part of matrimonial orders. Covers:

• Daily living expenses.
• Educational expenses (school fees, books, tuitions).
• Medical care.
• Extracurricular activities.

13.2 HAMA Section 20

Section 20 HAMA specifically provides for maintenance of children by parents. A Hindu parent is bound to maintain their children during minority, and if daughter is unmarried, until her marriage.

13.3 S.125 CrPC / S.144 BNSS

Children can claim maintenance from parents under S.125 CrPC (now S.144 BNSS). Fast summary relief, especially useful for urgent needs.

13.4 Combined Approach

Parents may face multiple maintenance obligations — for spouse under HMA/HAMA/S.125, plus children under same statutes. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) guidelines apply to coordinate these.

14. CHILD'S VOICE IN CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS

14.1 Right to Be Heard

Older children have a recognised interest in being heard. Courts may:

• Interview child in chambers (in-camera) to avoid public distress.
• Ask about child's preferences, feelings, concerns.
• Weigh child's maturity and understanding.
• Not disclose specific statements to parents (to reduce pressure).
• Consider child's emotional state and any signs of coaching.

14.2 Age Thresholds

Generally:

• Very young children (under 5) — wishes not solicited; tender years doctrine.
• Young children (5-10) — some weight to wishes, but courts wary of influence.
• Older children (10-14) — significant weight to well-considered preferences.
• Teenagers (14+) — strong weight given, approaching determinative in many cases.

15. SPECIAL ISSUES

15.1 Grandparent Visitation

Grandparents' visitation rights are a developing area:

• No automatic statutory right in India.
• Courts may grant visitation as part of child's welfare (maintaining family ties).
• Post-death of parent, surviving grandparents often granted access.

15.2 Religious Upbringing

Disputes over child's religious upbringing:

• Where parents follow different religions (especially post-conversion).
• Both parents generally retained right to expose child to their religion.
• Forcing any specific religion on unwilling child may violate welfare.

15.3 Relocation

Where custodial parent wishes to relocate (to another city or country):

• Requires court permission if it affects other parent's visitation.
• Welfare considerations include reasons for move, impact on child.
• Visitation arrangements may be restructured.

16. IMPORTANT POINTS FOR EXAM REVISION

1. Section 26 HMA: Custody orders in matrimonial proceedings — interim and final.
2. Welfare of child: PARAMOUNT consideration — overrides personal law, parental rights, custom.
3. HMGA S.6(a): Father is natural guardian of legitimate children; mother ordinarily has custody under 5 years.
4. Githa Hariharan (1999): 'After him' in S.6(a) includes father's ABSENCE, not just death. Mother can be natural guardian.
5. Gaurav Nagpal (2009): Modern authority — welfare paramount, tender years not absolute.
6. Tender years doctrine: Children under 5 ordinarily with mother — unless contrary welfare factors.
7. Types of custody: Physical, legal, joint, sole; visitation for non-custodial.
8. Child's wishes: Given weight at appropriate age (typically 10+); not determinative.
9. Section 13 HMGA: Welfare paramount in guardianship appointments.
10. International disputes: India not Hague Convention signatory; case-by-case welfare approach.
11. 60-day target: Interim applications for child's maintenance/education under S.26.

🧠 MNEMONIC: Welfare Factors — PEMSC

Physical welfare, Emotional welfare, Mental (educational/intellectual) welfare, Social welfare, Child's preference. P-E-M-S-C. All subordinate to overall welfare test.

🧠 MNEMONIC: Key Cases

Gaurav Nagpal (2009) — welfare paramount. Githa Hariharan (1999) — mother as natural guardian even during father's absence. Roxann Sharma (2015) — international custody with welfare approach.

🎯 EXAM TIP

Top-tested points: (1) Welfare of child is PARAMOUNT consideration — Gaurav Nagpal; (2) Section 6(a) HMGA — custody under 5 ordinarily with mother; (3) Githa Hariharan interpretation of 'after him' — includes father's absence; (4) Child's wishes relevant from about age 9-10; (5) Section 26 HMA applies to all HMA proceedings; (6) India not signatory to Hague Convention.

✨ Essay Strategy

For essay on custody: (1) Introduction — emotional complexity of custody matters; (2) Text of S.26 HMA; (3) Welfare principle — paramount consideration; (4) Interplay with HMGA S.6 and Guardians and Wards Act; (5) Factors courts consider; (6) Types of custody; (7) Tender years doctrine; (8) Child's voice and preferences; (9) Landmark cases — Gaurav Nagpal, Githa Hariharan; (10) International custody; (11) Interim custody; (12) Critical perspectives.

17. PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q1: Discuss the provisions relating to custody of minor children under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. What is the paramount consideration in custody decisions?

Q2: Examine the 'welfare of the child' principle in custody matters. How has the Supreme Court interpreted and applied this principle in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal?

Q3: Discuss the interplay between Section 26 HMA, Section 6 HMGA, and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Which provisions apply in which situations?

Q4: Explain the 'tender years doctrine' and its application in Indian law. Is it a rigid rule or a rebuttable presumption?

Q5: To what extent are the wishes of the child considered in custody proceedings? Discuss with case law.

Q6: A, a Hindu wife, takes her 4-year-old son to her parents' home and refuses to return. The husband files for custody. Discuss the legal issues and likely outcome.

Q7: How do Indian courts handle international custody disputes? Discuss with reference to Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma and the non-signatory status to the Hague Convention.