Bombay High Court: <\/strong>Addressing a matter wherein a child\u2019s mother was diagnosed with cancer due to which she started living at her parental home with the child, and after the passing of the mother, a custody battle arose between the father of the child and the father and brother of wife, <\/strong>Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamdar, JJ., noted animosity of the child towards his father, to which the Court expressed that, the same must have occurred due to \u2018parental alienation syndrome\u2019.<\/p>\n A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was instituted for writ of habeas corpus to produce Master \u2018J\u2019, petitioner\u2019s son who was alleged to be in the illegal custody of respondents 1 and 2, the father and brother, respectively of late Neeta, the wife of the petitioner and for direction to the respondents to hand over the custody of Master \u2018J\u2019 to the petitioner.<\/p>\n In the present matter, when Neeta, the mother of Master \u2018J\u2019 was diagnosed with cancer, at that time Master \u2018J\u2019 was just 5 years old. Neeta, as the record indicated, stayed at her parental home while she was undergoing treatment. It was quite natural that Master \u2018J\u2019 continued to be with Neeta and respondent 1.<\/p>\n Whether respondent 1 and his family members came to have the custody of Master \u2018J\u2019 lawfully or otherwise, pales in significance.<\/p>\n High Court stated that, the petitioner being the father of Master \u2018J\u2019 was the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Act, 1956. There was no qualm over the natural relationship between the petitioner and Master \u2018J\u2019 and the juridical status of the petitioner.<\/p>\n The Bench referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Tejasvini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, <\/em>(2019) 7 SCC 42<\/a> wherein the child, barely three months old, came to stay with the appellants, who were the sisters and brother-in-law of the wife of the respondent as the child\u2019s mother was diagnosed with cancer and at the same time the respondent-husband was diagnosed with Tuberculosis Meningitis and Pulmonary Tuberculosis and was required to be hospitalised. The child\u2019s mother passed away. When the respondent-father sought custody of his infant daughter, the appellants refused to hand over the custody.<\/p>\nAnalysis and Discussion<\/span><\/h4>\n
Question<\/span><\/h4>\n