The Supreme Court noted on Thursday that the mother, who is the kid’s sole natural guardian, has the authority to choose the child’s surname and to place the infant for adoption.
Thus, the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order to a woman to change her son’s stepfather’s surname back to his own surname was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
A Divisional bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari ruled that it was “nearly senseless and cruel” for the High Court to order a mother who had remarried after the death of her first husband to give her child their original surname back.
The bench said “The mother, the only natural guardian of the child, has the right to decide on the name of the child. She also has the right to have a child for adoption.”
The grandparents on the kid’s paternal side sought custody of the child in 2008 under the Guardians and Wards Act when the mother remarried, and that dispute was the subject of the current case.
The grandparents’ request for custody was denied by a trial court, which reasoned that separating the child from the mother would not be logical. However, it gave the grandparents only restricted visitation rights, which the High Court also upheld.
The High Court also imposed the following two conditions:
Within three months, the mother must complete the formalities for restoring the child’s original surname to that of the biological father (rather than the stepfather).
Where records allow, the biological father’s name will be shown; otherwise, the current husband’s name will be mentioned as a step-father.
Dissatisfied with the additional conditions, the mother appealed the order to the Supreme Court, claiming that the grandparents had never requested such conditions in their petition, despite the fact that the High Court included them in its order.
The Supreme Court ruled that, while the High Court has the authority to intervene, it can only do so when a specific request is made, and such request must be based on the premise that the child’s best interests are paramount and outweigh all other considerations.
The Court also noted that the mother’s second husband had formally adopted the child in accordance with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, despite the fact that a formal adoption process was not required.
As a result, it overturned the High Court’s surname directives.
Read more legal news here.