Case at a Glance
After the mother’s death, a child lived with the maternal grandparents until the Supreme Court, in an earlier appeal, handed custody to the father from 1 May 2025, with visitation for the grandparents. The grandfather then filed contempt, alleging the child was never sent to them. After interacting with the child in the Committee Room, the Court held that the child’s welfare would be best served with the grandparents and, invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction, directed custody to be handed to them, allowing the father only supervised visits once in three months if the child also desires. The contempt case was closed with these directions.
The petitioner’s daughter, the child’s mother, had died, and the child was being looked after by the maternal grandparents. The father, Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi, the child’s natural guardian, holds a responsible administrative services post in the State and has remarried. In an earlier judgment (Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2025), the Supreme Court, relying on its decisions permitting custody to be considered under Article 226 at the instance of a natural guardian, handed custody to the father. Custody continued with the grandparents until 30 April 2025, the end of the academic year, with the father allowed meetings on alternate weekends; from 1 May 2025 custody was to pass to the father in the presence of the jurisdictional SHO, and the grandparents were given visitation on every second Saturday from June 2025.
The grandfather, Ashok Kumar Tiwari, filed a contempt petition alleging that the child was not once sent to the grandparents as ordered. The father responded that the grandparents did not come to collect the child on second Saturdays, and that he had been transferred far from their home. On 31 July 2026 the Court directed the child to be produced, and on 7 August 2026 it interacted with the child in the Committee Room. A maternal uncle told the Court that the child had secured admission in a prestigious institution, with fees paid, when custody was handed to the father.
The Key Question Before the Court
In a contempt petition alleging breach of a custody arrangement, can the Supreme Court revisit custody itself in the child’s interest, and with whom should the child live?
From Contempt to Welfare: The Parens Patriae Turn
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran did not decide the contempt allegation on fault. Instead, after interacting with the child, it concluded that “the interest and welfare of the child would be best served if he is allowed to be looked after by his grandparents.” The Court recorded the family background: the paternal grandfather had deposited Rs. 10 lakh in the child’s name and taken a Rs. 25 lakh life insurance policy with the child as beneficiary, and three maternal uncles live with the grandparents.
Acknowledging that it was dealing with a contempt case, the Court said that after its interaction with the child, “exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction is expedient.” It therefore directed that the child be handed over to the grandparents, and the maternal uncle was allowed to take the child from the Court itself. On the father’s access, the Court was cautious: “the father has to first build confidence in the child and if the child also desires”, he may visit once in three months under the strict supervision of the grandparents or maternal uncles. On maintenance, the grandparents “would be entitled to pursue the same in accordance with law.” The order names no precedents.
What the Court Actually Held
- Even while hearing a contempt petition, the Court may exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to modify custody when the child’s welfare requires it.
- After interacting with the child, the Court held that the child’s interest and welfare would be best served in the care of the maternal grandparents, and directed custody to be handed over to them.
- The father may visit once in three months, under strict supervision of the grandparents or maternal uncles, after building confidence and if the child also desires; the grandparents may pursue maintenance in accordance with law.
- The contempt petition was closed with these custody directions.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that the welfare of the child, not the technicalities of contempt, guides the Supreme Court in custody disputes.
- It recognises that grandparents can be the best caregivers even against a natural guardian father, depending on the child’s circumstances.
- It underlines the weight the Court gives to directly interacting with the child before deciding custody.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families
- Courts may speak to the child directly; the child’s comfort and wishes can shape the outcome, as they did here.
- A parent who obtains custody must also honour the other side’s visitation; non-compliance can lead the court to revisit custody itself.
For Counsel
- In custody-related contempt, be ready for the court to look beyond compliance to welfare; prepare material on the child’s present situation.
- Note that the father’s visits were made conditional on building confidence and the child’s desire, under supervision.
- Maintenance claims for the child remain open to the grandparents to pursue in accordance with law.
Key Takeaways
- Welfare of the child overrides the narrow scope of a contempt case.
- Custody returned to maternal grandparents after the Court met the child.
- Father allowed supervised visits once in three months, if the child desires.
- Contempt closed with custody directions; no punishment imposed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court change custody while deciding a contempt petition?
In this case, yes. The Supreme Court said that after interacting with the child, exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction was expedient, and it directed custody to be handed to the grandparents while closing the contempt case.
Can grandparents get custody over a natural guardian parent?
Here the Court held that the child’s interest and welfare would be best served with the maternal grandparents, though the father is the natural guardian. Each case turns on the child’s welfare.
What visitation did the father get?
The Court said the father must first build confidence in the child and, if the child also desires, may visit once in three months under strict supervision of the grandparents or maternal uncles.
Conclusion
Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi shows the Supreme Court putting the child at the centre, even in a proceeding that began as a complaint of disobedience. Having heard the child, the Court did not hesitate to reverse its own earlier custody arrangement.
Practical takeaway: In custody matters, compliance with visitation orders and the child’s actual well-being both matter; courts can and will revisit custody when the child’s welfare demands it.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com