Nanak Chand vs. Chandra Kishore || Case Summary ||AIR 1970 SC 446 || Welfare of the Child
- Vinita Pathak
- May 19
- 2 min read
FACTS
Nanak Chand and Chandra Kishore were involved in a dispute over the guardianship of minor children. The father, Nanak Chand, claimed his right as the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, while Chandra Kishore, the mother, sought custody, arguing that the welfare of the children would be better served under her care. The case arose due to disagreements over who should have guardianship, with the lower courts initially ruling in favor of the father.
ISSUES
Does the father, as the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, have an absolute right to guardianship?
What is the paramount consideration in determining guardianship of minors?
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6: Recognizes the father as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, followed by the mother.
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 13: States that the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration in guardianship decisions.
JUDGEMENT
In Nanak Chand vs. Chandra Kishore, The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Chandra Kishore, the mother. The Court held that while the father is the natural guardian for welfare of the child under the Act, this right is not absolute. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and in this case, the mother was deemed more suitable to serve the children’s best interests due to the specific circumstances, such as the father’s inability to provide proper care.
SIGNIFICANCE
Reinforced the principle that the welfare of the child takes precedence over the statutory rights of a natural guardian.
Clarified that the father’s guardianship rights under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act are not absolute and can be overridden if the child’s best interests lie elsewhere.
Set a precedent for future guardianship disputes in India, emphasizing a child-centric approach in family law cases.
Vinita Pathak
Comments