New Delhi: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Monday held that an unwed mother seeking custody of her child need not disclose the father’s name as mandated under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
A bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A.B. Sapre said, “Avowedly, the mother is best suited to care for her offspring, so aptly and comprehensively conveyed in Hindi by the word mamta. Furthermore, recognising her maternity would obviate the necessity of determining paternity. In situations such as this, where the father has not exhibited any concern for his offspring, giving him legal recognition would be an exercise in futility.”
Writing the judgement Justice Sen said, “In today’s society, where women are increasingly choosing to raise their children alone, we see no purpose in imposing an unwilling and unconcerned father on an otherwise viable family nucleus. It seems to us that a man who has chosen to forsake his duties and responsibilities is not a necessary constituent for the well-being of the child.”
The court noted that the woman’s fundamental right of privacy would be violated if she was forced to disclose the name and particulars of the father of her child. In this case, the woman had given birth to her son in 2010 and raised him without any assistance from or involvement of his father.
Read: Welfare more important than dad’s identity, says Supreme Court
When she tried to make her son her nominee in all her savings and insurance policies, she was informed that she must either declare the name of the father or get a guardianship/adoption certificate from the court. After the Delhi High Court dismissed her appeal, she moved the apex court.
The bench said, “Any responsible man would keep track of his offspring and be concerned for the welfare of the child he has brought into the world; this does not appear to be so in the present case,” adding that, “Furthermore, Christian unwed mothers in India (as in the present case) are disadvantaged when compared to their Hindu counterparts, who are the natural guardians of their illegitimate children by virtue of their maternity alone, without the requirement of any notice to the putative fathers.”
The bench said “We do not find any indication that the welfare of the child would be undermined if the Appellant is not compelled to disclose the identity of the father, or that Court notice is mandatory in the child’s interest.”
