Supreme Court: In a case concerning the custody of a minor child by her maternal aunt and uncle, despite the father being her sole surviving parent, a Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan, JJ., issued transitional directions to facilitate the child’s gradual adjustment to her father’s residence in Chennai. Emphasising the need to ensure the child’s comfort and emotional well-being during the transition, the Court directed the maternal aunt and uncle to accompany the child to Chennai, stay at the father’s residence and cooperate with him and his family in helping the child adjust to her new environment.
Background
The petitioner, the child’s surviving parent, approached the High Court seeking her custody. According to the petitioner, the child’s mother had passed away about a month after her birth in 2021, following which the child resided with him in Chennai until 1 March 2024. On that date, Respondents 5 and 6, the child’s maternal aunt and uncle, who were residing with the petitioner, took her to their village in Odisha and did not return her.
Despite proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court, the petitioner could secure only the child’s production for an interaction with him. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition on 23 February 2026, holding that the child’s custody with Respondents 5 and 6, pursuant to the CWC’s order, could not be characterised as unlawful or illegal custody.
Analysis and Decision
Pending consideration of the special leave petition, the Court directed Respondents 5 and 6 to travel to Chennai on 11 October 2026 along with the petitioner’s minor child, aged about 5 years, and reside at the petitioner’s residence to enable the minor child to acquaint herself with the petitioner and familiarise herself with his residence, and to attend school on the next day upon reaching Chennai.
The direction was passed on the basis of the petitioner’s affidavit that he has taken admission for the child in a school in his office building. Respondents 5 and 6 had also filed their affidavit.
The Court directed that, during the period of transition, Respondents 5 and 6 shall cooperate with the petitioner and his family to ensure that no discomfort whatsoever is caused to the minor child and that she is able to easily adjust with the petitioner and his parents.
The Court further directed the petitioner to take all necessary steps to ensure that the child remains comfortable and at ease during the period of transition and to bear the necessary expenditure for the travel of Respondents 5 and 6 and the minor child from their residence in Odisha to Chennai and return thereafter.
The Court directed that the parties shall remain cordial during the period of transition to ensure that the minor child adjusts in the petitioner’s house. The matter was directed to be listed on 3 November 2026.
[Shashikanta Majhi v. State of Odisha, SLP (Crl.) No. 5720 of 2026, decided on 6-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Ashish Kumar Tiwari- 2770, AOR, Saurav Agrawal, Akanksha Dubey, Anurag Tiwari, Arya Bhatt, Samayra Adhlakha, Sahib Patel, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6: Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR, Sarthak Srivastava, Utkarsh Rai, Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Sandeep Pandey, Aditya Anand Singh, Advocates
