Court Emphasizes Child's Welfare, Orders Mediation for Matrimonial Dispute Resolution
In a significant judgment dated February 17, 2026, the Calcutta High Court has ruled in favor of Sajal Roy, maintaining his custody of his eight-year-old son, Priyanshu, amidst an ongoing custody battle with his estranged wife, Moumi Roy. The Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount, and the child's current stable environment should not be disrupted without substantive evidence warranting such a move.
The case arose when the trial court awarded custody of Priyanshu to his mother, primarily citing her higher educational qualifications. However, the High Court found that the trial court's decision relied heavily on speculative reasoning rather than concrete evidence. The High Court noted that Priyanshu has lived with his father since birth, receiving education and care in a stable paternal home environment, which includes tuition from his aunt and private tutors.
The bench expressed concerns about the potential distress that could be caused by uprooting Priyanshu from his habitual residence, stating that such a decision should not be based solely on the assumption that maternal care is more beneficial. Consequently, the High Court stayed the operation of the trial court's order, pending the appeal's outcome.
In an interim arrangement, the court granted Moumi Roy visitation rights, allowing her to spend time with Priyanshu every weekend. This measure aims to ensure that the child maintains a relationship with both parents while his living conditions remain stable.
Recognizing the possibility of reconciliation, the court has referred the matter to the Calcutta High Court Mediation Committee. The mediation process, which will include the involvement of a professional psychologist, seeks to address not only the custody dispute but also the broader matrimonial issues between Sajal and Moumi Roy.
The court's decision underscores the judiciary's approach in prioritizing the best interests of the child and encouraging amicable resolutions to family disputes through mediation.
Bottom Line:
Custody of minor child - Welfare of the child paramount - Educational qualification of mother alone cannot be the sole determining factor for granting custody - Child's habitual residence and current environment should not be disrupted without substantive reason.
Statutory provision(s): None explicitly mentioned in the judgment.
Sajal Roy v. Moumi Roy, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2855088
