The legal saga began with the tragic death of Ms. Subrata Das, who succumbed to COVID-19 shortly after giving birth to her second child, Sugandha, in April 2021. The bereaved father, grappling with profound grief after also losing his father just weeks later, temporarily entrusted the care of his children to his sister-in-law, respondent No. 5, as a stop-gap solution.

Over time, custody of the son, Divyanshu, was returned to the father, but Sugandha remained in the care of her aunts, who claimed she needed a female caregiver. As time passed, however, the father found it increasingly difficult to maintain contact with his daughter, who was moved to West Bengal.

In July 2023, the father filed a case under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of Sugandha. Following a series of legal maneuvers, including a habeas corpus petition filed in early 2024, the High Court ultimately directed both parties to seek resolution through the family court.

The father appealed the High Court's decision, arguing that as the child's natural guardian, he should not have to fight through multiple legal avenues to secure custody of his own child. His counsel highlighted the importance of familial bonds, particularly the need for Sugandha to grow up with her father and older brother.

Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had erred in its dismissal. Citing the case of Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the court reaffirmed that the father, as the natural guardian, has an undeniable right to his child, especially given the circumstances surrounding the custody arrangement.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount, stating that Sugandha should not be deprived of her father's love and care, especially as he had remarried and was capable of providing a stable environment. The court also noted that the minor girl, having begun to bond with her father’s new family during visitation periods, deserved to live with her natural family.

The Supreme Court allowed the father’s appeal, quashing the High Court's order and directing the immediate transfer of custody of Sugandha back to her father. While ensuring that the aunts could still maintain contact with the child, the court reinforced the notion that familial connections should not be severed due to unfortunate circumstances.

This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the legal recognition of parental rights and the importance of maintaining familial ties, particularly in challenging situations. As this case illustrates, the best interests of the child remain at the heart of custody disputes, ensuring that their welfare is always prioritized.