Eight-year-old boy caught in custody crossfire

The future of an eight-year-old boy who lost his mother at the time of his birth is hanging in balance. Vishwajit, whose pet name is Sangharsh, is the bone of contention between his father, Deepak Kisanrao Tekam, and maternal grandfather, Shyamrao Maroti Korwate, over his custody.

Vishawajit lives in Yavatmal and his father, who works with the state electricity board, lives in a taluka about 90 km from the city.
Within years of the death of his wife Kaveri, Tekam remarried and had a child. But he wanted Vishwajit’s custody too. However, the Yavatmal district judge granted his custody to Korwate, saying it was in the child’s interest.

But the Bombay high court (HC) in 2007 scrapped the order and directed the grandfather, a pensioner who has other children as well, to hand over Vishwajit’s custody to his father, his natural guardian under law.

It may be pointed out that the HC judges had personally spoken to Vishwajit and observed that “the child could not be unhappy, uncomfortable and unsafe in the custody of his father”.

The grandfather moved the Supreme Court two years ago, saying that living with him was in the interest of the child. That he would get love and affection from aunts and unmarried maternal uncles, besides better education in the city as opposed to the taluka of his father.

Expressing concern for the welfare of the child — of paramount importance in the determination of his custody — a bench of justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan on Tuesday said that the right of his parent or other relatives does not override the “paramount importance” criterion.

The word “welfare” in section 13 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1956, has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense.

There are serious differences between Tekam and his father-in-law Shyamrao Maroti Korwate regarding Vishwajit.