Introduction:

In Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr., GUAP No. 03 of 2022, decided on December 01, 2025, by the Orissa High Court, Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra delivered a significant ruling on child custody, holding that a father’s right to custody of his minor child cannot be rejected merely because he failed to produce the child’s birth certificate or his wife’s death certificate, especially when paternity stands admitted and the welfare of the child clearly favors restoration of custody to the natural guardian. The appellant married the mother of the minor on 19.06.2019 according to Hindu rites, and from the peaceful conjugal life a male child was born; however, soon after childbirth, the mother tragically died due to cardiac arrest. Following her death, the child was taken away and kept by the maternal grandfather, who not only retained custody but allegedly prevented the father from meeting his own son, compelling the appellant to approach the Family Court, Bhadrak under the Guardians and Wards Act for custody. The Family Court declined relief solely because the father did not furnish the birth certificate of the child or the death certificate of his wife, even though the first respondent—maternal grandfather—had admitted in his written statement that the appellant was indeed the father and natural guardian. Feeling aggrieved by this refusal on purely technical grounds, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, leading to the High Court’s intervention.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant:

The appellant argued that the Family Court committed a grave legal error by treating his paternity as a disputed fact despite a clear and unequivocal admission in the written statement of the maternal grandfather that the appellant was the father and natural guardian of the minor child. Relying on Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was contended that facts admitted need not be proved, and therefore the court below was unjustified in insisting upon the production of the child’s birth certificate or the wife’s death certificate. The appellant submitted that the marriage, the birth of the child, the mother’s death, and his status as the natural guardian were all undisputed facts, and the only real question before the court should have been the welfare of the child—an aspect entirely overlooked by the Family Court. It was further argued that as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father is the natural guardian of a minor boy in the absence of the mother, and thus denying him custody without any adverse material went against the statutory mandate and the principles governing guardianship. Finally, the appellant stressed that the child had been unlawfully withheld from him for years and the continued separation deprived both father and son of affection, emotional bonding, and a stable parental environment.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent:

No counsel appeared for the respondents before the High Court; however, the High Court examined the written statement earlier filed before the Family Court wherein the first respondent had admitted that the appellant was the biological father and natural guardian of the child. The only basis on which the respondents had previously opposed custody was the alleged lack of documentary proof, specifically the non-production of the birth certificate and the death certificate. No allegation of unfitness, neglect, or adverse conduct on the part of the father existed in the pleadings, nor was there any claim that the welfare of the child would be jeopardized in the custody of his natural father. The High Court therefore concluded that there was no substantive argument—either factual or legal—that justified withholding custody from the appellant.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held that the Family Court committed a serious legal error by rejecting the father’s application for custody on the narrow and technical ground of non-production of the birth certificate and death certificate, even though paternity stood admitted by the maternal grandfather in his written objection. The High Court emphasized that as per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved, and hence there was no requirement for the appellant to further establish his paternity through documentary evidence. More importantly, the Court reiterated that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father is the natural guardian of a minor child in the absence of the mother, and thus denying him custody without any adverse material was against the statutory mandate. The Court also noted that the minor child was around 5½ years of age and incapable of expressing intelligent preference regarding custody, and that keeping him away from his natural father, without any justification, would deprive both father and son of mutual affection crucial for healthy development. The High Court found that the maternal grandfather’s retention of the child appeared unjustified, especially when there was no allegation that the father was unfit or that the welfare of the child required continued custody with the grandfather. Observing that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters, the Court held that the Family Court’s insistence on technical documentation ignored the larger and more important question of the child’s emotional, psychological, and developmental needs. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and directed the maternal grandfather to hand over custody of the minor child to the appellant. At the same time, recognizing the emotional bond between the child and the grandfather, the Court allowed the maternal grandfather liberty to visit and meet the child at the appellant’s residence whenever he desired. The judgment reasserted the principle that guardianship and custody cannot be denied due to procedural technicalities when the welfare of the child and the statutory rights of a natural guardian clearly point in favor of granting custody.