NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SEMESTER III

FAMILY LAW-I
PROJECT

Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal

[AIR 2009 SC 557]

SUBMITTED TO
Ms. Debashree Sarkar

SUBMITTED BY
Siddharth Bhargava
(2019 BALLB 55)

1
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the case analysis - GAURAV NAGPAL V. SUMEDHA NAGPAL
has been prepared and submitted by SIDDHARTH BHARGAVA who is currently
pursuing their BALLB at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of Family
Law-I course. It is also certified that this is an original case analysis and this has not been
submitted to any other university, nor published in any journal.

Date-
Signature of the student-
Signature of Research Supervisor-

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would
like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Debashree Sarkar for guiding
me throughout the development of this paper into a coherent whole by providing helpful
insights and sharing her brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of the
Gyan Mandir, NLIU for helping us to find the appropriate research material for this study.
I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support and
encouragement.

Siddharth Bhargava
2019BALLB55

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5

NAME OF THE CASE:...................................................................................................... 7

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT: ......................................................................................... 7

CITATION OF THE JUDGEMENT: ................................................................................. 7

NAME OF THE JUDGES: ................................................................................................. 7

NAME OF THE BENCH: .................................................................................................. 7

NUMBER & TYPE OF OPINIONS: ................................................................................. 7

NAME OF THE JUDGE WHO DELIVERED JUDGEMENT: ........................................ 7

NAME OF THE COUNSELS APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES: ................................. 7

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 9

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 9

ISSUES OF THE CASE ................................................................................................... 11

CONTENTIONS OF THE CASE .................................................................................... 11

PROVISIONS OF STATUTES/CONSITUTION ............................................................ 14

DOCTRINES/THEORIES INVOKED ............................................................................ 16

LITEREATURE CITED IN THE JUDGEMENT ............................................................ 16

PRECEDENTS CITED .................................................................................................... 17

JUDGEMENT................................................................................................................... 19

REASONING ................................................................................................................... 19

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... 20

4
INTRODUCTION

A major problem of the civilised rule of law has been the treatment and safety of minors'
rights and interests. Need for such a provision arises from a minor's immaturity because of
his age and his perceived inability to take proper care of himself. An individual is more
likely to be considered a minor before he or she reaches the age of eighteen. All the personal
law matrimonial statutes make provisions for dealing with the issue of child custody. The
provisions in the matrimonial Acts can, however, it can be invoked only when there are
some proceedings pending under the Act. Hindus have an additional Act, viz the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act1956 (HMGA). Apart from this, there is the Guardians and
Wards Act 1890 (GWA). This is a secular law both for appointment and determination of
guardians and associated issues, regardless of caste, community or faith, although the court
will take into account the personal law of the parties in some matters. The regulations of
the HMGA (and other personal laws) and of the GWA are reciprocal and not negative, and
the courts are required by law to read them in harmonious fashion together. In determining
the question of custody and guardianship, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the
minor. The word ‘welfare’ has to be taken in its widest sense, and must include the child's,
moral as well as physical well-being, and also have regard to the ties of affection.
But these are general judicial claims, and there is no law that is hard and fast. It is now a
strongly established precedent for children of tender years that mother should have their
custody because father cannot provide that maternal love that is necessary for their
healthy and proper development. It is also necessary for proper psychological development
of children of tender-years. The HMGA (Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act), 1956
contains a provision which lays down that custody of a child upon the age of five should
ordinarily be with the mother. Under other personal laws, though it is no such statutory
provision, the Indian courts have consistently taken view.

GUARDIANSHIP OF PERSON OF MINORITY-

A minor refers to the person who hasn't really reached the age of eighteen years. In other
words, a minor is a person who is physically and mentally imperfect and immature and
who needs to be looked upon by others.

5
 CUSTODY TO FATHER or MOTHER
CJ Beaumont observed a view that say, “if mother is a suitable person to take charge of the
child quite impossible to find an adequate substitute for her for the child.”
Kamal Rudra Das J. Opined on a similar footing that, there is no question that the lap of
the mother is God's own nest for a child of this maturity level, and that a kid of such a
relatively young age must stay with the mother as between father and mother, all factors
being equal.
 CUSTODY TO THIRD PERSONS –
Custody should generally be granted to one of the parents. Although where welfare
demands it, a third party may be granted custody. The court noted in Baby v. Vijay1
awarding custody to somebody like the maternal grandfather of minor children that even if
the father was not found incompetent, custody could be granted to a third party for the
child's welfare.
In Venkatraman v. Tulsi2, the court disregarded the wishes of the children as it found
these to induced by wholesale persuasion and were even tortured.

1
Baby v. Vijay [AIR 1992 Ker 277]
2
Venkatraman v. Tulsi [(1949) 2 MLJ 802]

6
NAME OF THE CASE:

GAURAV NAGPAL .............

Appellant

v.

SUMEDHA NAGPAL
…......... Respondents

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT:

19TH NOVEMBER, 2008

CITATION OF THE JUDGEMENT:

AIR 2009 SC 557

NAME OF THE JUDGES:

JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

NAME OF THE BENCH:

....... APPEAL BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT

NUMBER & TYPE OF OPINIONS:

THERE IS ONE OPINION IN THE PRESENT JUDGEMENT AND IT IS A UNANIMOUS OPINION.

NAME OF THE JUDGE WHO DELIVERED JUDGEMENT:

JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT

NAME OF THE COUNSELS APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES:

APPELLANT: -

Adv. Prason Divedi

7
RESPONDENTS: -

Adv. Rajat Aneja

NAME OF THE INTERVENORS/ AMICUS: -

Not Applicable

8
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Not much has been shown in the Hindu Shastras and Purans about guardianship. This was
owing to the principle of joint families, where the head of the joint family takes care of a
child without parents. Therefore, no unique guardianship legislation was necessary back in
those times. The entire idea of guardianship had already changed from the paternal power
to the concept of protection and safeguard in modern times under HMGA, 1956 enshrines
the minority and guardianship laws with the child's welfare serving at the core. The Hindu
Minority and Guardianship act was introduced in 1956 as part of the Hindu Code Bills,
along with other acts such as the Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act to modernise the prevailing scheme of the Hindu legal system. Instead of
acting as a substitute for the already prevalent act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act was created to strengthen the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 as well as provide
children with improved rights and security. The law is secular and was enacted for the
purpose of establishing rights, responsibilities and relationships between adults and minors.

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

The husband and the wife namely Gaurav Nagpal and Sumedha Nagpal got married on the
day of 14th October in 1996 and nearly after twelve months later the couple was blessed
with a child on 15th November, 1997. But as the time passed the marital tension between
the parties took a turn and daily disputes were brought to the court for a solution. The major
issues involved between the parties were on maintenance and lawful custody of the child.
A classic scenario where the child seems to have become the object of controversy is the
case at hand. Bitter legal battles were waged and the parties travelled through the halls of
many courts, including the Supreme Court. ⠀

9
THE TIMELINE:

14-10-1996: Marriage took place between Gaurav Nagpal and Sumedha Nagpal.

15-11-1997: The married couple was blessed with a child.

8-8-1999: On the account of Appellant (Husband), the Respondent (Wife) abandoned the
child and left the family alone.

25-8-1999: The Respondent filed a petition on the ground of the writ Habeas Corpus.

14-1-2000: The Respondent filed a SLP (Special Leave Petition) against the order passed
by the High-Court with an objective to get the legal custody of the child. Also, she filed a
writ petition under Article-32 of constitution of India.
But the High Court permitted the custody of the child with the Appellant.

MEANWHILE: Respondent filed for a maintenance petition before the Delhi High Court
and the very same time filed a plea of guardianship to get the custody of the child under
District court of Gurgaon.

2-5-2002: The Civil Judge denied the plea put forward by the request for temporary custody
of the respondent, maintaining that any disruption by altering the child's custody would
traumatise him and might not be advantageous to the child's well-being and would harm
the mental balance of the child who formed attention and compassion for his father and his
friends and family.

30-9-2002: The court ordered for the visitation rights to the Respondent but the custody
was still left with the Appellant. This order was passed by the court on the ground of the
revision petition made by the respondent.

10
6-1-2007: Against the order of the court over the visitation rights, the appellant was charged
with the contempt of the court order as he violated the order previously passed.
Appellant appealed in the High-Court against the charges of contempt of court order.
High-Court passed an interim Stay over the previous order which allowed the respondent
to have the custody the child and also dismissed the appeal of the Appellant.

29-9-2007: The previous order of High-Court to grant the custody of child to the
Respondent was put on stay still by a new order the visitation rights were again resumed.

On the question of the criminal contempt of violation the court order by the Appellant. The
Trial Court came to hold that since the child had remained with the appellant for a period
of seven years, he appears to have made every possible effort to obtain the custody of a
minor. The learned District Judge took cognizance of the fact that removing the child from
the custody of his father could severely impact the child's feelings and upbringing, but the
child should not be denied of the mother's home at the same time. It was evident again from
appellant say before the High Court that the lower court had not held that he was suffering
from just about any deficiency in his capacity as a father and that, accordingly, there was
no detailed cause for the Court to entrust the respondent with direct custody of the child.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

While deciding the grant of custody of a minor child, when the husband and wife are not
able to provide a normal parenting to the child due to one or the other possible reasons,
how significant does the concept of welfare of the minor or best interest of the child, play
a role and does factors like money, house and educational background is also considered
as differentiator.
Thus, there was a mixed question law and fact.

CONTENTIONS OF THE CASE

1. APPELLANT
a. Firstly, the appellant reiterated the contention made in the trial court that the
child has been living with the father by whatsoever reasons for quite a long

11
 time (7 years) and thus now separating the child from the appellant would
only cause him mental distress and agony which would in turn be
detrimental to the overall growth and development of the child.
b. Secondly, the appellant contended the lower court’s decision which said that
he was in no way disabled to have the custody of the child and the
respondent should not be given the custody just because she is the mother.
c. Thirdly, it was claimed that the father was the legal guardian with regard to
§6 of the Act3 and the welfare of the minor child rests with him. He has a
large income and lives in a joint family where the appellant, his mother, the
wife of his brother and brother himself, and his three nephews take care of
the minor. The warmth of the joint family has contributed to the child's all-
round growth and keeping him away from those environments would in all
certainty robs the child of such love and affection. The appellant lives in
a posh place, and the house is built on almost 3000 sq. yards, while the
respondent lives in a two-bed room flat with her parents. In addition, the
plaintiff has a strong educational record and, because the child has been
living with him for more than seven years, the courts should not have
ordered the custody over to the respondent.
d. It was further noted that the respondent should have brought on record how
she would be able to provide good education to the child with her limited
income, as the primary focus was the child's welfare. It was pointed out that
the child is terrified of his mother and that it will lead to irreparable
emotional damage to take him from the father's custody.
e. Finally, in respect of the contempt case against the appellant it was
submitted that any case lodged against was only on technical grounds and
that the he is not a criminal.

f. Also, most importantly the reluctance of the child to go with the mother had
to be taken into consideration, which would make a strong case of the
appellant’s connection with the child.

3
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

12
 g. A strong reliance was made on Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant
Ganguli4, where according to the appellant the pari materia were same and
the father had won the custody.

2. RESPONDENT
a. On the other hand, the respondent's stance was that the appellant had
relocated his residence to Bahadurgarh by deceit and fraud. From where he
snatched the child’s custody on 1.8.1999. After that date, she has
approached several courts to request custody of the child and to correct her
concerns. The respondent was issued an order interim custody. The
appellant was convicted by the High Court and sentenced to one month in
prison for failure to comply with the orders of interim custody, and while
the order of imprisonment has been stayed, the order of conviction remains
to be in effect. In disobeying the orders given by the courts, the appellant's
action shows that he has little respect or concern for the rule of law.
b. It was further submitted by the respondent that money, facilities, area of a
house or the financial might cannot be factors as the child’s welfare cannot
be weighed only in these [Link] was stated that the only reason of her
residing with her parents is because she is only a public-school teacher and
has only a salary of Rs. 13000 per month (which was to increase). It was
submitted that she may not be as financially sound as the appellant but that
can not be the sole deciding factor which disentitles her from such custody.
Further the fact that the place where she resides is not appropriate for a
child’s growing is preposterous and that the neighbourhood has many parks
and friendly people around which make would make the growing up of the
child much more wholesome.
c. It is also pointed out that there is no fixed residence for the appellant. He
moved to Bahadurgarh from Delhi and then Gurgaon and back to Delhi in
a house in Sainik farm, where the appellant claims to live. His brother is
the actual owner. There was a deliberate effort to poison the baby's mind.

4
Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, [JT 2008 (6) SC 634].

13
 Negative information against the respondent have been fed into the mind of
the kid. It was further argued that the child would resolve any taught bias if
adequate time was given. While there was a suggestion that the relatives
would provide the child with a safe atmosphere, none of them entered the
witness box and affidavits provided much later could not be a substitute for
the Court's evidence.
d. Further, it was submitted that the H.C. was aware of the financial situation
of the respondent unlike the claims of the appellant and it had even ruled
that massive wealth can not be the determining factor of child’s custody.
e. The respondent submitted that the only reason by which the husband still
ahs the custody of the child is by the floatation of the court’s order by him,
which he has done on numerous occasions and has further also been
convicted for the contempt of court.
f. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant had also committed fraud by not
declaring that he had a previous marriage before the respondent. She also
alleged that the previous wife committed suicide within 6 months of
marriage in lieu of torture and mental harassment similarly faced by the
respondent, for which a case was still pending before a CBI court in Patiala.

3. INTERVENORS/AMICUS
Not Applicable

PROVISIONS OF STATUTES/CONSITUTION

 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

If we review certain of the laws dealing with the case, it will be acceptable. The
legislation relating to guardians and wards is combined and amended by the
Guardians Act.
Section 4 of the said Act defines "minor" as a person who has not attained the age
of majority. "Guardian" means a person having the care of the person of a minor or
of his property, or of both his person and property.

14
 Sections 5 to 19 - "Ward" is defined as a minor for whose person or property or
both, there is a guardian. The act relates to appointment and declaration of
guardians.
Section 7 deals with `power of the Court to make order as to guardianship'
Section 13 - The word `welfare' used in of the Act has to be construed literally and
must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must
also weigh with the Court as well as its physical well-being.

 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19565

The Act is another equally important statute relating to minority and guardianship
among Hindus.
Section 2 – “Declares that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not
in derogation of 1890 Act”.

Section 4 - Defines “minor” as a person who has not reached eighteen years of age.
“Guardian” means a person who cares for the person of a minor, or for his property,
or for both his person and his property, and includes, inter alia, a natural guardian.

Section 6 enacts as to who can be said to be a natural guardian.

Section 8 enumerates powers of natural guardian.

Section 13 is extremely important provision and deals with welfare of a minor.

Welfare of minor to be paramount consideration.6

(1) “In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a
Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount
consideration.”
(2) “No, person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the
provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage
among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship
will not be for the welfare of the minor.”

5
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
6
§ 13, HMGA, 1956.

15
  Hindu Marriage Act, 19557
Section 26 of the Act provides for the custody of children and declares that, in any
proceeding pursuant to that Act, the Court may, from time to time, make such
interim orders as may be considered reasonable and proper with regard to the
custody, maintenance and education of minor children, wherever possible,
consistent with their wishes.
 The Constitution of India, 1950
Article 32, enshrines the writ jurisdiction of the supreme court as according to the
constitution. It includes the writ of habeas corpus invoked in the said judgement.

DOCTRINES/THEORIES INVOKED

 HABEAS CORPUS
Habeas corpus is a legal remedy by which a prisoner may complain to a court an
illegal detention or incarceration and request that the court order the person's
custodian, normally a prison official, to bring the detainee to court to decide if the
detention is lawful. But when such writ is filled for the detention of a minor child
the court is concerned with the welfare of the child not the illegality of the detention.
 PARENS PATRIAE
It is the doctrine of a welfare state i.e. the state (a sovereign nation) is not only for
policing the citizens but also providing for them and giving them the basic
necessities of required for human subsistence, in the said case the doctrine is used
in the context that the court is not only for application of law and giving ideal
judgements, it also exists for providing for the citizens under its ambit by acting as
a parent and taking inconsideration not only law and fact but also the feelings and
necessities of the parties.

LITEREATURE CITED IN THE JUDGEMENT

 Halsbury's Laws of England8 by Edward Jenks

7
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
8
Edward Jenks, Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 24, 1907.

16
 Halsbury's Laws of England is a uniquely comprehensive encyclopaedia of law,
and provides the only complete narrative statement of law in England and Wales.
It was cited to for establishing that in a custody battle of a minor, the utmost priority
of the court should be the welfare of the child.
 A Treatise on the Law of Habeas Corpus and Special Remedies9 by William
Francis Bailey
It is basically a compendium and analysis all the matter that is available of the writ
jurisdiction in the English jurisprudence.
It is cited to analyse Bailey’s take on the writ of habeas corpus.
 American Jurisprudence10 by Thomson Corporation.
It’s an encyclopaedia of the American law.
It was cited to get a wholesome view of the fact that custody of a minor must be
given upon his welfare and nothing else.

PRECEDENTS CITED

1. INDIAN JUDGEMENTS
a. Saraswathibai Shripad v. Shripad Vasanj11
“It is not the welfare of the father, nor the welfare of the mother that is the
paramount consideration for the Court. It is the welfare of the minor and the
minor alone which is the paramount consideration.”12
b. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal 13
The Supreme Court held that the object and intent of the 1890 Act was not
only physical custody of the minor, but due protection of the health,
maintenance and education rights of the ward. The protection of minors is
the power and responsibility of the Court under the Act. Of course, due
consideration must be given to the right of the father as a natural guardian
when considering the issue of the welfare of the minor, but if the custody of

9
William Francis Bailey, A Treatise on the Law of Habeas Corpus and Special Remedies, Vol. 1, 1956.
10
Thomson Corporation, American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Vol. 39, 1962.
11
Saraswathibai Shripad v. Shripad Vasanj, [AIR 1941 Bom 103].
12
Id.
13
Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, [(1973) 1 SCC 840].

17
 the father cannot facilitate the welfare of the children, such guardianship
can be denied.
c. Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka14
The Court clarified that the welfare and interests of the minor should be the
sole consideration of the Court in determining the matter of custody of the
minor. And it is the Court’s unique duty and responsibility. In such a
scenario, mature thought is also important to determine what will survive
for the child's benefit and welfare.
d. Surinder Kaur Sandhu (Smt.) v. Harbax Singh Sandhu15
“The Court held that Section 6 of the Act constitutes father as a natural
guardian of a minor son. But that provision cannot supersede the paramount
consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.”16
e. Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli17
The court debunked the contention of the appellant by stating that the facts
of the cases are not pari materia, even though in Mausami Moitra also the
father is a financially better off to provide for the child, but money and
material possessions do not over weigh the morals and ethics that should be
present in an ideal custodian.
2. FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS
a. Mc Grath, Re18
“The dominant matter for the consideration of the Court is the welfare of
the child. But the welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only
nor merely physical comfort. The word ‘welfare’ must be taken in its widest
sense. The moral or religious welfare of the child must be considered as well
as its physical well-being. Nor can the tie of affection be disregarded.”19
b. Howarth v. Northcott20

14
Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, [(1982) 2 SCC 544].
15
Surinder Kaur Sandhu (Smt.) v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, [(1984) 3 SCC 698].
16
¶41, Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, [AIR 2009 SC 557].
17
Supra.
18
Mc Grath, Re, [(1893) 1 Ch 143].
19
Id.
20
Howarth v. Northcott, [152 Conn 460].

18
 The court said in the proceedings of habeas corpus involving child custody,
In such cases, the authority exercised by the Court depends on its inherent
equal powers and exercises the control of the State, as parens patriae.

JUDGEMENT

 In Personam
Thus, after citing all the literature, precedents and establishing a reasoning the court
upheld the order of the impugned judgement of the High Court, and granted the
right of custody with the mother only along with modifying the visitation rights of
the appellant. Thus, the judgement partially affirmed the impugned judgement of
the High court.
 In Rem [RATIO DECIDENDI]
Not Applicable.

REASONING

The judgement provides us with various reasons according to various provisions and
concepts.
“When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it
has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis,
in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The court then does
not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed
at the welfare of the minor.”21
“The word ‘welfare’ used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must
be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh
with the Court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special
statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into
consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the Court exercising its parens
patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases”22

21
¶42, Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, [AIR 2009 SC 557].
22
¶43, Id.

19
“The trump card in appellants’ argument is that the child is living since long with the father.
The argument is attractive. But the same overlooks a very significant factor. By flouting
various orders, leading even to initiation of contempt proceedings, the appellant has
managed to keep custody of the child. He cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs. The
High Court has referred to these aspects in detail in the impugned judgments.”23

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court in the Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal24 emphasised that efforts
should be made to bring about conciliation to bridge communication gaps to prevent people
from rushing to courts. The case at hand is a classic example where the child has become
the focus of controversy. Home can be an enjoyable place to live. But persistent struggles
between a marriage's partners destroy the environment at home and cause chaos for a
family's members. To manage a happy marital home, one does not even have a house. The
essence of a happy home is love, the exchange of joys and sorrows, and not bricks and
concrete in that sense. The core should be cemented, not the floors and walls cemented. It
is life which joy that brings eternal meaning to life is not the transient pleasure that depends
on conditions. In the end, in the war between the spouses, the victims are the children more
often than not. It is unfortunate that, in their struggle, children suffer more often because
of egoism. People moving to court to break up marriages must come as a last resort, and
courts should aim to bring in cooperation unless it has an imminent outcome. Preserving
marriage and not splitting this should be the emphasis. As mentioned above, in instances
where the children suffer consequence of marriage breakdown, this is much more crucial.
In an issue where the child's future is of concern, the best interest of the child must be of
priority. Priority must not be given to different religious or personal rules, but the need for
the hour is a secular law and a uniform law. As adoption is a child's legal association, it
forms the subject of personal law. When nothing in one's life has ever went wrong, he or
she will never had an opportunity to grow stronger. It should never be forgotten that living
well today makes every day a dream of happiness, yesterday, and tomorrow a promise of

23
¶44, Id.
24
AIR 2009 SC 557

20
hope. Marital satisfaction depends on honesty, love and appreciation of one another. For
ego conflicts and misunderstandings, a home should not be an arena. The physical and
emotional union should be there.

21