Why Mothers Are Preferred for Boy’s Custody in India

2025-12-04

Why Courts Award Custody of a Boy to the Mother: Legal and Practical Insights

Summary of the Article

Courts often award custody of a young boy to the mother because Indian law and judicial precedent recognise that a child’s welfare especially in early years is best secured through maternal care.
Under the Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the welfare of the child overrides parental preference or gender considerations.

Custody decisions are among the most emotionally challenging aspects of family litigation. Parents often worry that gender bias or stereotypes determine who gets the child. However, the Indian courts have repeatedly clarified that custody is not a reward or punishment to either parent.

It is a judicial determination based solely on the welfare, stability, and emotional security of the child. The preference for granting custody of young boys to mothers arises not from discrimination, but from established understanding of child psychology and caregiving patterns.

What Indian Law Says

Custody laws in India are governed by a combination of personal laws and secular statutes, including:

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: As per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it says the natural guardian of a minor boy or unmarried girl is the father, and after him, the mother; however, custody of a child under five years is ordinarily with the mother.
The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Section 17): As per The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Section 17), it says Courts must consider the welfare of the minor as the paramount factor, including age, gender, comfort, health, and moral development.
Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India directs the State to ensure that children grow in conditions of freedom, dignity, and moral well-being.

Thus, while statutes name the father as the “natural guardian,” courts have the discretion to award custody to the mother if it serves the child’s welfare.

Judicial Interpretation: The “Welfare Principle”

Indian courts interpret custody laws through the welfare principle, treating it as the constitutional and moral compass of family jurisprudence.
Some important rulings illustrate this approach:

Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42
The Supreme Court held that welfare is not confined to money or physical comfort, but includes emotional, ethical, and educational well-being. Custody may go to the mother even if the father is financially stronger.
Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015) 8 SCC 318
The Court reiterated that a child below five years should ordinarily remain with the mother, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. The presumption favours the mother as the primary caregiver during formative years.
Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67
The Supreme Court noted that the love and emotional security provided by a mother cannot be replaced merely by material comforts from the father.

These judgments demonstrate that courts assess the real-life nurturing environment, not just legal or financial standing.

Why Courts Prefer Mothers in Custody of Boys

The judicial preference for awarding custody of boys especially those below 10 years to mothers stems from a mix of legal reasoning, child psychology, and practical caregiving realities:

Tender Age Doctrine:
The belief that children in their early years require maternal affection, emotional stability, and nurturing guidance is well established in Indian jurisprudence.
Continuity of Care:
Courts recognise that disrupting a child’s routine, especially when they are living with the mother post-separation, can be psychologically harmful.
Emotional Bonding and Daily Care:
Mothers are often primary caregivers involved in the child’s education, health, and social development. Courts weigh this emotional continuity heavily.
Moral and Educational Development:
The mother’s role in shaping moral values, discipline, and emotional security is considered essential to a child’s balanced upbringing.
Absence of Adverse Factors:
Unless there is evidence of neglect, abuse, or unfit behaviour, courts hesitate to disturb custody already with the mother.

This approach aligns with the constitutional vision of equality and protection of childhood, not gender bias.

When Courts Award Custody to the Father

Courts may depart from the general presumption in the following circumstances:

When the mother is financially or mentally incapable of caregiving.
When there is evidence of abuse, neglect, or instability in the mother’s environment.
When the boy has reached an age (usually 10–12 years and above) where his expressed preference is considered, he chooses the father.
When the father can demonstrably provide a better emotional and educational environment.

Even in such cases, courts ensure visitation rights and joint parenting structures, recognising both parents’ roles in the child’s growth.

Constitutional and Social Perspective

The Constitution of India upholds the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which extends to the right of a child to live with dignity, emotional care, and safety. The Directive Principles (Article 39 and 45) further mandate protection of children’s interests.

Courts interpret these provisions harmoniously with statutory law, ensuring that custody orders reflect constitutional compassion—protecting a child’s welfare, not parental power.

This approach also resonates with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India has ratified, requiring all custody decisions to prioritise the child’s “best interests.”

Practical Case Examples

In a Delhi High Court case (2021), a six-year-old boy remained with his mother despite the father’s claim of higher income. The Court held that “emotional nurturing outweighs material comfort.”
In Meenakshi v. Pramod Kumar (Allahabad HC, 2018), the custody of an eight-year-old boy was given to the mother as she had been the primary caregiver since birth, and the boy’s academic progress under her care was found satisfactory.
Conversely, in Rajesh v. Kavita (Punjab & Haryana HC, 2020), custody was shifted to the father after the child, aged 13, expressed preference and the mother had relocated abroad.

These cases show how Indian courts blend legal reasoning with practical empathy, adapting to each child’s circumstances.

Final Verdict:

The law on custody in India does not favour either parent by gender; it favours the best interests of the child.
When courts award custody of a boy to the mother, it reflects a judicial understanding that maternal care during tender and formative years ensures stability, moral grounding, and emotional security.

As the child grows, courts remain flexible, reviewing custody arrangements when circumstances change. Ultimately, the focus remains constant: the welfare, happiness, and holistic development of the child above all else.

At Family Kanoon, we often advise parents that custody is not about “winning a case.”
It is about ensuring that the child continues to feel loved, safe, and secure regardless of which parent they live with.