Open Access Research Article
REDEFINING CUSTODY: A CALL FOR GENDER-NEUTRAL CHILD CUSTODY LAWS
Published Paper
Article Details
REDEFINING
CUSTODY: A CALL FOR GENDER-NEUTRAL CHILD CUSTODY LAWS
AUTHORED BY - DEVARAJAN B & SAMYUKTHA
V
Sastra Deemed University, Thanjavur
ABSTRACT
In modern times, divorces have become
increasingly common among married couples. However, beyond the breakdown of a
marriage, divorce also disrupts the entire family structure. The ones who
suffer the most in this process are the children. Along with divorce, the
question of who will have custody of the child becomes a central issue, with
arguments revolving around their well-being. Custody disputes frequently raise
concerns about biases in decision-making. Conventionally, mothers are perceived
as better caregivers, while fathers are seen as financial providers. This
deep-rooted belief places children in a difficult position, as custody
decisions are often influenced by societal stereotypes rather than their best
interests. Can it be concluded that mothers are the only suitable caregivers?
Should a child always be placed in the mother’s custody? These questions
highlight the biases inherent in custody disputes, making them argumentative.
Courts also scrutinize working mothers, questioning their ability to devote
time to their children, while simultaneously considering the criminal history
of spouses in custody decisions. As a result, the prolonged battle over child
custody often puts them in emotional turmoil, as they may prefer both parents
or one whom the court did not favour. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956, and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, though intended to protect the
child's best interests, often reflect outdated societal norms rather than an
objective assessment of parental capability. These laws remain largely
gender-biased, failing to adopt a truly neutral approach to custody decisions.
INTRODUCTION
In today's world, divorce has become
increasingly common among married couples. While the couple may part ways, the
bigger concern is to determine where the child will live and with whom. Child
custody becomes a highly debatable issue during the breakdown of a marriage.
When a child needs both parents, does the law acknowledge this concept? In some
cases, children may not prefer either parent due to prolonged custody battles,
which leave them emotionally drained.
Is the court still driven by the
presumption that mothers are the best custodians? There have been instances
where mothers were granted custody despite being involved in illegal
professions, on the other hand financially stable and capable fathers were denied
custody based on the preconceived notion that only mothers can be primary
caregivers.
In custody disputes, the court also
considers factors such as criminal charges against either spouse and the impact
of second marriages. However, in the process, it is often the children who
suffer the most, enduring prolonged legal battles and uncertainty over their
future.
Despite significant societal and
economic shifts, where parents frequently share financial and caregiving
responsibilities, the prevailing legal frameworks adhere to outdated norms that
assume mothers are inherently better suited for raising children or
contrastingly working mothers are not better custodians. This presumption
undermines the paramount interest of the child—the fundamental principle that
should guide all custody decisions.
Ego clashes between parents often
turn custody battles into tiresome conflicts, where both harm the child without
even realizing it. The paramount interest of the child is overshadowed by the parent’s
fight for custody, which becomes more about power and influence rather than
genuine care. Instead of determining who would be the better custodian, the
focus shifts to who can influence the system in their favor. In many cases,
even the parent who wins custody fails to provide the necessary emotional
support, leaving the child neglected despite their ongoing emotional turmoil.
In India, laws such as the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
have long been criticized for perpetuating gender stereotypes that result in
biased custody decisions. Even fathers, capable and well-equipped to care for
their children, are often disadvantaged in family courts. This bias, coupled
with societal pressures and outdated legal assumptions, has led to a situation
where fathers are either denied joint custody or limited to superficial
visitation rights.
The lack of gender-neutral custody
laws exacerbates the problem, contributing to a cycle of parental alienation
and emotional distress. To address this imbalance, there is an urgent need for
legal reform that ensures equality between parents in custody decisions, based
on objective criteria rather than gender. This article explores the current
state of child custody laws in India, highlights the inherent biases within
these laws, and argues for the implementation of gender-neutral legislation to
better serve the interests of children and ensure fairness for both parents.
Legal
Analysis of Gender Bias in Child Custody in India
Child custody laws determine the
rights and responsibilities of parents or guardians regarding the care and
upbringing of children following a divorce or separation. These laws aim to
protect the child’s best interests, ensuring their physical, emotional, and
psychological well-being. Child custody is generally classified into various
types, including;
1.
Legal
Custody: It grants a parent the authority to make significant decisions about
the child’s upbringing, including education, healthcare, religious beliefs, and
overall welfare. This type of custody can be either sole or joint, depending on
the court’s decision. In the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009), the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the child’s welfare over the rights
of parents in custody decisions. The court held that while one parent may be
granted legal custody, both parents should be involved in decision-making
whenever possible[1].
2.
Physical
Custody: It refers to where the child resides after separation or divorce. The
custodial parent provides daily care, while the non-custodial parent may
receive visitation rights. In the case of Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015), the
Supreme Court ruled that custody of minor children should ideally be granted to
the mother unless there are compelling reasons against it. This landmark case
held that the custody of a child below 5 years of age should be given to the
mother unless the father must accept the upbringing of the child under the
mother’s custody.[2]
3.
Sole
Custody: whereas it is awarded to one parent, granting them both physical and
legal custody, the other parent may have limited or no rights to
decision-making and visitation. This may be referred to the case of Nil Ratan
Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) where the court learned about the case that the maternal
grandparents of the child did not apply before any court for their appointment
as the legal guardian of the child and if the father wanted the custody of the
child, it was their legal duty to return the child to his father[3].
4.
Joint
Custody: Both parents to share legal and
/or physical custody of the child. This type may promote shared parental
responsibilities and involvement in the child’s life and the child will not
suffer more than the other types of custody. In the case of KM Vinaya v. B
Srinivas (2013), the Court granted joint custody to both parents of a
12-year-old boy and ordered that the child spend time with each parent for a
specific period, where both parents share the child’s education and other
expenses[4].
Determination
of Child Custody: India and Global Perspectives
In India
The child custody laws are governed
by personal laws based on their religion and the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The
court considers factors such as the child’s age, emotional attachment,
financial stability, and parental capability while deciding custody. The court decides
based on the paramount interest of the child.
•Hindu Law: Under section 6 of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father acts as a natural guardian for
the Hindu minor, followed by the mother. However, for a child below five years
of age, custody is usually granted to the mother[5]. This provision creates an implicit preference
for the mother when the child is young, reinforcing the traditional
preconceived notion that a mother is the better caregiver. While guardianship
can be shared between the father and mother under Hindu law, courts still often
show a bias toward mothers as custodians. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act emphasizes that mothers have the primary role when it comes to the
caregiving aspect, even when joint guardianship is awarded. Section 13 of the
Act explicitly states that the mother will be given custody of children below 5
years of age, which can also be extended to children between 5 to 9 years in
certain circumstances, but based on the court’s discretion[6].
This automatically concludes that mothers are better nurturers than fathers. It
is often prejudiced as mothers are better and primary caregivers whereas
fathers are providers. Even though both parents are legally equal guardians,
mothers often have an automatic preference in custody disputes, especially
during a divorce case for young children. Under Hindu law, custody may be taken
away from the mother if she remarries, especially if the new husband is
considered an unsuitable influence on the child. However, there are no such
restrictions for fathers. This clearly shows the gender bias and the need for
gender reforms in child custody. In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India
(1999) case, the Supreme Court ruled that mothers cannot be automatically given
the right of guardianship without the father's consent. This case exposed the
bias against fathers in child custody and established that both parents should
have equal rights. The case highlighted the mothers' custody rights that were
presumed without considering the father's role. [7] In
one of the cases, the Kerala High Court passed an orbiter dictum[8]
that courts often prefer mothers in custody disputes, and it emphasized that
the welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration, not gender-based
assumptions. The case supports the argument that gender bias is built into the
system of child custody, where mothers are often prioritized over fathers
without fully considering the father’s ability to provide equal care.
•Muslim Law: The concept of Hizanat
applies, where the mother generally retains custody until the child reaches the
age of seven years for boys and puberty for girls. The different treatment of
boys and girls reinforces gender stereotypes. Under the Muslim law, if a mother
remarries, she loses her custody of the child but it is not applicable for the
father showing the gender bias reflecting the patriarchal assumption that
children belong to the father's family. On the other hand, the father does not
get the right to raise their daughters of young age; assuming that only mothers
are responsible for the moral upbringing of the female child and the father
does not get to play the role. Mothers were given only the responsibility of a
caregiver and fathers retains the financial and legal power over the child even
though there are not involved in the daily care showcasing the gender bias in
child custody. In the case of Ghulam Hussain Laskar v. Nessa Begum (2014),
father was given custodial rights over the mother even though the mother had been
the primary caregiver, leaving the child's emotional bond and welfare at the
margin[9]. The case of Imambandi v. Mutsaddi (1918)
showcased gender bias where the father was given custody of the child based on
traditional Muslim law regardless of the child’s emotional ties with the
mother.[10]
•Christian and Parsi Law: The Indian
Divorce Act, 1869, grants the court the authority to decide custody matters
based on the child’s interests. Even then some cases showed gender bias towards
child custody. Under this act, if a divorce is granted, the custody of children
below 5 years is generally awarded to the mother. This reflects the assumption
that mothers are better suited to care for young children.
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: Guardian
and Wards Act, 1890 is one of the primary laws that govern child custody in
India[11]. It
applies to all religions unless there is an intervention of personal law. While
the Act is meant to ensure the best interests of the child, its interpretation
by courts has often led to gender-biased outcomes, particularly favoring
mothers in custody battles. This bias is mainly coming into the picture when
the child is of a tender age; it is presumed that mothers are the best
nurturers. The father must prove the mother’s incapacity to take care of the
child as by default the custody battle favors the mother. Courts often view
fathers as financial providers rather than nurturing figures, leading to
limited visitation rights rather than custody. In the case Chethana Ramatheertha
v. Kumar V. Jahgirdar (2002), the Supreme Court on appeal overruled the
decision Of Karnataka High Court which ordered the child custody to the mother
because of the traditional belief that mothers are better caregivers. The
Supreme Court held that the judgment should not be based on gender assumption but
instead based on the paramount interest of the child.[12]
Global Practices
·
Australia:
Australia enacted the Family Law Act, 1975, and amended it in 2006[13].
According to the Act joint custody is the primary objective apart from
exceptional circumstances such as abuse, neglect, or violence by either of the
parents. Fathers are given equal rights by eliminating the preconceived notion
that mothers are primary caregivers. The courts encourage co-parenting taking
the child’s interest into consideration.
·
United
States: Courts favor joint custody unless proven detrimental to the child’s
welfare. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) ensures
consistency in custody laws across states. Custody is awarded based on who can
provide the best environment. Shared parenting plans are common, allowing both
parents equal involvement[14].
·
United
Kingdom: Custody is determined under the Children Act, 1989, which prioritizes
the child’s best interests and encourages shared parenting where possible. Judges
decide based on the child’s best interests rather than giving preference to the
mothers as in traditional times. The parent most capable of caring for the
child gets custody.[15]
·
European
Union: Most EU countries support shared custody unless one parent is deemed
unfit.
·
Canada
– Divorce Act, 2021 (Amendments) was enacted in which the gender-neutral
custody laws promote equal rights for both parents, focusing purely on the
child's well-being. Terms like “custody” and “access” were replaced with
“parenting time” and “decision-making responsibility.” Judges consider the best
interest of the child, and their relationship with both parents to remove
gender bias. The focus is not on gender but on the parenting capabilities of
each parent[16].
Key
Differences: India vs. Foreign Countries
|
Aspect
|
India
(Biased System)
|
Foreign
Countries (Gender-Neutral)
|
|
Legal Basis
|
Religion-based
personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc.)
|
Uniform
civil laws (e.g., Family Law Acts, Children Acts)
|
|
Custody
Default
|
Mothers are
favored concerning young children
|
Joint
custody or case-specific decision
|
|
Father’s
Rights
|
Must prove
the mother unfit to get custody
|
Equal
rights unless unfit
|
|
Mother’s
Rights
|
Automatic
preference for young children
|
Case-by-case
basis, not assumed
|
|
Joint
Custody
|
Rarely
awarded
|
Encouraged
in most cases
|
|
Parental
Role Assumptions
|
Mother =
caregiver, Father = provider
|
Parents
have equal responsibilities
|
|
Child’s
Welfare Focus
|
Influenced
by gender biases
|
Fully
child-centric approach
|
Child custody laws aim to safeguard
the best interest of the child while ensuring fair arrangements for both
parents. Courts in India and globally have evolved to prioritize shared
responsibility and parental involvement while considering the child's emotional
and psychological stability. Legal precedents continue to shape custody laws to
ensure the child’s well-being remains the central concern in custody decisions.
In one of the judgments the High
Court found that the Family Court had failed to address core considerations of
child welfare and instead based its decision on gendered assumptions,
condemning the Family Court for its “sexist and patriarchal” remarks, the court
stated: “Such conclusions are unfortunately sexist in tenor, and lazed
by archaic notions of patriarchy, especially when no one has a right to judge
women by how she dresses, or by the choices of her manner of life.”[17]
Family
Courts and the Custody Dilemma: A Fair Fight or a Stacked Deck?
The Court strives to act for the
child’s welfare, perceptions of bias- particularly favoring mothers-still persists.
The nuances of such biases, the challenges faced by both fathers and working
mothers, the neglect of non -traditional families, need measures to ensure
equitable justice. Child custody laws in India have traditionally been
influenced by gendered perspectives, often favouring mothers in custody
disputes. However, the evolving societal norms and the importance of both
parents in a child’s upbringing necessitate a gender-neutral approach. Such an
approach ensures that custody decisions are made in the best interest of the
child, recognizing the equal role of both parents, preventing parental
alienation, and encouraging shared responsibility. This may explore the need
for gender-neutral child custody laws in India.
a)
Preference
for mothers in custody decisions: Historically, Indian courts have tended to grant
custody to mothers, operating under the presumption that they are the primary
caregivers. This inclination is deeply embedded in societal norms that
emphasize the mother’s role in child-rearing. The principle of the
"tender-years doctrine" further reinforces this bias, suggesting that
young children are better off under their mother's care. However, in the case of
Israr Ahmad v. Azazul Hussain Ahmad & Anr, the Court considered that
leaving the minor child with the mother would be the proper guardian for the children
for the well-being of the child.[18] It is a revolution in traditional Muslim Law
where the father is used to give custody of the child as the
patriarchal assumption that children belong to the father's family.
b)
Disadvantages
faced by fathers: Fathers often encounter significant hurdles in custody
battles, even when they are financially stable and capable of providing
emotional support. The Supreme Court ruled that regardless of a child’s age or
gender, a father has equal rights to custody of the child. However, the
societal stereotype that views fathers primarily as breadwinners rather than
caregivers which contributes to this bias.
c)
Challenges
faced by working mothers: The bias in custody decisions is not solely against
fathers; working mothers also face prejudices. They are often perceived as less
capable caregivers compared to homemakers, with an underlying assumption that a
mother must choose between her career and parenting. The case of Thrity Hoshie
Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka B states that a working mother should
not be denied custody of her child. The working woman can effectively balance
professional responsibilities while providing a nurturing environment for her
child[19].
d)
The
Neglect of LGBTQ+: Non-Traditional families, including those with LGBTQ+
parents, often face legal hurdles in custody battles. The lack of recognition
and legal frameworks for diverse family structures can result in unjust custody
decisions.
Beyond
Labels: A Wake-Up Call for Fair Custody Laws
1. Best interests of the child: This
principle is the cornerstone of child custody decisions worldwide. In Lahari
Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali (2019) case, the Supreme Court stated that
separating a child from their primary caregiver would violate their fundamental
right to autonomy[20].
Gender-neutral laws prioritize the emotional, psychological, and financial
well-being of the child rather than the gender of the parent. Undergoing the
case of Francis Joseph S/o Thottapalil Joseph v. Shobha Francis Joseph (2014),
the Gujarat High Court ruled that the best interest of the child must guide
custody decisions, even in the matter of cross-border situations[21].
The principle rejects rigid gender-based assumptions and instead evaluates who
can provide the most nurturing and stable environment.
2. Parental Equality: Traditional laws
often ensure that mothers are naturally better caregivers, but this may
disregard the evolving roles of fathers in parenting. Both parents should have
equal legal standing during custody decisions, ensuring that neither of them is
unfairly disadvantaged due to gender. The focus should be on parenting ability
rather than societal stereotypes. In Mr. Tushar Vishnu Ubale v. Mrs. Archana
Tushar Ubale (2016) case, the Bombay High Court awarded custody of a child to the
mother, and granted visitation rights to the father; this judgment may
strengthen the parent-child relationship[22].
A gender-neutral law would ensure that fathers are given an equal opportunity
to seek custody and participate in their child’s upbringing. The need for
custody law to be gender-neutral because while assessing custodial rights the
focus should be more on emotional stability, financial capacity, and the
child’s best interests rather than assuming one parent is inherently
better. Courts should encourage and
promote joint custody apart from exceptional cases, ensuring the child
maintains a meaningful and lasting relationship with both parents. Shared
custody arrangements reduce the emotional strain on children and prevent the
alienation of one parent.
3. Avoiding Parental Alienation: When
one parent manipulates the child to turn against the other parent, the
gender-biased laws can unintentionally facilitate such alienation, causing
emotional distress to the child. In Vivek
Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) case, the Court Acknowledged the issue of parental
alienation syndrome and stressed the importance of both parents in a child’s
emotional development[23].
This law would encourage a balanced relationship with both parents. Parental
alienation can lead to emotional distress, agony, confusion, guilt, and low
self-esteem in the minds of the children. Children may develop resentment or
fear toward the alienated parent, affecting their long-term emotional and
psychological well-being. And their relationship with the alienated parents
will be permanently broken. Restricting
one parent’s access without valid reasons can be detrimental to the child’s
emotional health.
4. Encouraging shared responsibility: A
gender-neutral legal framework would encourage co-parenting rather than
promoting adversarial custody battles. Shared custody or Joint parenting
ensures that the child benefits from the involvement of both parents. This
approach fosters a sense of security and emotional stability, as well as
positive role models for the child, allowing them to build meaningful
relationships with both parents. Studies show that children raised by
both parents develop better social, emotional, and academic skills. Children
benefit from having consistent emotional support from both parents rather than
experiencing the absence of one. Legal reforms are necessary to promote shared
custody as the default option, ensuring fair treatment of both parents.
To mitigate biases in
family courts and promote justice, these measures can be considered like Legal
reforms that amend existing laws for gender neutrality, Judicial training
ensuring fair evaluations of both parents’ capabilities and eliminating
inherent biases, and support for Non-Traditional Families by developing a legal
framework that acknowledge and protect the rights of LGBTQ+. By implementing
these measures, the Indian Family Courts can move towards a more balanced and
prioritizing the welfare of the child above all else.
A
Child-Centric Approach: Reforming Custody Laws for a Better Tomorrow
1. Implementing Gender-Neutral Custody
Laws
Traditionally custody
laws often favour mothers based on the outdated notion that they are the
primary caregivers. However, in recent times parenting structures involve equal
participation from both the parents. Courts should ensure that custody
decisions are based on the child’s best interests, assessing factors such as
emotional stability, caregiving ability, and financial security rather than
gender. Many countries such as the UK, the US, and Canada are shifting towards
gender-neutral custody laws, and India should adopt similar reforms to
eliminate bias in family courts.
2. Encouraging Joint Custody as the
Default Approach
Studies show that
children raised with both parents actively involved in their lives develop
better emotional resilience and social skills. Laws should promote joint
custody as the primary option unless there are concerns about abuse, neglect,
or other potential risks. Courts should ensure and encourage co-parenting
plans, allotting the responsibilities for education, healthcare, and overall
well-being.
3. Strengthening Mediation and
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Prolonged custody battles
impact the children negatively. It will put them in emotional turmoil, exposing
them to psychological stress and parental conflict. Courts should encourage
mediation and counseling to help parents to reach amicable custody agreements. Mediation
centers should be strengthened to offer legal guidance, emotional counseling,
and conflict resolution strategies.
4. Legal Protections Against Parental
Alienation
Parental alienation
occurs when one parent manipulates the child to turn against the other parent,
damaging their relationship. Parental alienation often leads to emotional
distress and hatred towards the alienated parent which causes failure in
maintaining the relationship between them. Courts must recognize and penalize parental
alienation, and modify the custody arrangements if a parent is found guilty of
alienating the child or is a potential threat to the child. In Vivek Singh v.
Romani Singh (2017), the Supreme Court acknowledged parental alienation as a
harmful factor affecting child custody decisions[24].
5. Standardized Guidelines for Custody
Decisions
Currently, custody
rulings vary from case to case, often influenced by personal judicial
interpretations. India needs clear legal guidelines that define custody based
on emotional, financial, and psychological stability, child preference, and
parental involvement. Specialized family courts with trained judges and child
psychologists should be established to handle custody cases efficiently.
6. Post-Divorce Parental
Responsibilities and Support Systems
Divorced or separated parents
will often find it difficult in co-parenting due to their ego clash, zero
tolerance and so many personal reasons. But here child’s welfare is must. So
mandatory co-parenting programs may be introduced by the Courts to educate
parents in taking care of their children
and managing responsibilities in
post-divorce phase. Family counseling and policies ensuring single parents to
avail financial assistance should be made available so that the child will not
get affected financially.
7.
Ensuring Fair Visitation Rights
The
fathers, who are used to be the non-custodial parents, encounters problem in
meeting their children due to restrictive custody orders. The visitation rights
of the parent should be ensured and the defaulting parent who denies access to
visit the child should be penalized by the Courts. In modern days, Virtual visitation rights (video
calls, online meetings) may be encouraged and
legally recognized in order to safeguard the interest of the child and
to ensure continued parental involvement.
8. Child-Centered Legal Approaches
The Courts should give
preference to the child’s desire (especially grown up child’s) with whom he/she
wants to live while making custody decisions. The legal system should mainly be
focused on child’s education, social environment, and emotional needs of the
child in order to provide them a fair and dignified life. The legal system should be child-centred. A
speedy judgement in the cases related to custody of the parenting will avoid
the mental stress of the child.
9. International Recognition of Custody
Orders in Cross-Border Cases
Due to globalization, the
child custody disputes arise between the parents residing in different nations.
To settle the issues, the international laws are to be strengthened and
treaties are to be drawn between nations. The cross border disputes can be
fairly settled through The Hague Convention on Child Abduction Treaty. However,
a legal strategy should be adopted in preventing one parent to relocate the
child to another country without mutual agreement of the partner unlawfully.
10.
Raising Social Awareness on Equal Parenting
Our
society is deeply rooted with Gender disparity. Sometimes, it may reflect in
Judicial decisions and public perception. So an awareness among the public is
to be created to promote equal parenting, sharing of responsibility between the
parents and the right of the father to have the custody of the child etc. Flexible parenting policies in workplace may
help the parents in raising their children smoothly.
CONCLUSION
“Children need love, especially when
they do not deserve it” —Harold Hulburt.
“A
father's goodness is higher than the mountain, a mother's goodness is deeper
than the sea.” -Japanese Proverb. The parents i.e. the Father and Mother are
considered to be eyes of a child. Both the eyes are concentrating for one
vision only, that is a children prosper. A child expects a complete love from
his/her parents. Losing one parent’s support and love may put them in hardship.
Here legal aid will come to the child’s rescue. As a parent, they cannot leave
their responsibility of parenting their child and go easily. Our law intervenes
there and settles the disputes between the parents and paves a way for
well-being of a child. Eventhough the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, are considered to be the protection tools of a child, they need reforms
according to the present era. Divorce or separation between parents are
considered as ruthless in previous century. But now time evolves, the
divorce/separation become common now. The question of raising the child comes
into picture. Here it is the role of the law to handle the issue carefully
without affecting the welfare of the child. The outdated societal norms
in a century old laws need a revision for the betterment of a child’s custody
and its welfare. Legal and social reforms in child custody are essential to
ensure fairness, reduce gender bias, and prioritize the child’s well-being. By
implementing gender-neutral laws, promoting joint custody, strengthening
mediation, and enforcing fair parental rights, the legal system can create a
more just and child-friendly custody framework.
Review of the law will give a re-view
to the betterment of a child’s welfare in the present era.
***
[1] Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha
Nagpal, AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 557
[2] Roxann Sharma v. Arun
Sharma, AIR 2015 SC 2925 (2016)
[3] Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit
Kundu, 2008 (9) SCC 413
[4] KM Vinaya v. B
Srinivas, MFA.NO.1729/2011 (G & W)
[6]
Ibid, S. 13
[7]
Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1999
SUPREME COURT 1149
[9]
Ghulam Hussain Laskar v. Nessa Begum (2014)
[10]
Imambandi v. Mutsaddi,
(1918)20BOMLR1022.
[12] Ramatheertha v. Kumar
V. Jahgirdar, AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1525
[18] Israr Ahmad v. Azazul
Hussain Ahmad, (2010) 2 SCC 654
[19] Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam
Shavaksha Dolikuka B, 1982 AIR 1276
[20] Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan
Kodali, AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 2881
[21] Francis Thottappillil Joseph v. Shobha
Francis Joseph, C/SCA/7483/2014
[22] Mr. Tushar Vishnu Ubale v. Mrs.
Archana Tushar Ubale, AIR 2016 BOMBAY 88
[23] Vivek Singh v. Romani
Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231
[24] Ibid. note.23
Article Information
REDEFINING CUSTODY: A CALL FOR GENDER-NEUTRAL CHILD CUSTODY LAWS
Authors: DEVARAJAN B, SAMYUKTHA V
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/02/07
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.