It appears that the trial Court granted custody of the minor boy to his father although the suit was filed for appointment of guardian of minor boy but since the father is natural guardian of child he need not make prayer for appointing him as guardian under section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, rather he can claim for custody of minor child which the Court rightly granted under the facts and circumstances of the case. In the plaint averments have been centered around seeking custody of the minor boy and as such the courts below rightly granted custody of the minor boy to the plaintiff under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. ...Md. Ahsan Ul Monir & ors. Vs. Dr. Md. Fakhrul Islam & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 87 ....View Full Judgment

The suit is for custody of the plaintiff-petitioners son — suit is pending in the Family Court since 1994 — in all fairness a father cannot be denied access to his minor son while in the custody of the mother. [Para – 4] Akhtar Masood Vs. Mrs. Bilkis Jahan Ferdous 5 BLT (AD)- 107.

In deciding the custody of minor child, the best interest and wellbeing of the child is paramount consideration as mandated in Section 17 of Guardian and wards Act, 1890. It is stipulated therein that in considering the welfare of the minor, the court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property. It is further stipulated that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligence preference, the Court may consider that preference. ...Md. Ahsan Ul Monir & ors. Vs. Dr. Md. Fakhrul Islam & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 87 ....View Full Judgment

The access frequency and duration must be calculated keeping in focus the best interests of the child–– When the children were first brought before us, they were aged four and three years respectively. The children had been residing with their father for some time and had naturally developed a close relationship with him. However, because of the tender age of the children, we felt that their best interests demanded that they should be in the custody of their biological mother. Order was passed accordingly. However we made it a point to monitor the progress of the children by directing periodic appearance before us as well as seeking reports from the Probation Officer who was engaged by this Court to monitor the progress of the children. .....Amena Chowdhury Kheya =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 541] ....View Full Judgment

In this aspect, we have also meticulously gone through the provision employed in section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The essence of such provision also denotes the welfare of a minor child in case of giving custody of his/her person or property. Section 17(2) of the Act ibid also reiterates the factors to be considered by the court in appointing guardian where in sub-section (3) has vested right upon the court to consider the issue of custody in case the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference to stay. And that preference is to be assumed by the court considering surrounding circumstance. In both sections only “welfare of the minor” has been given paramount importance. …M Nazim Uddin & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 128 ....View Full Judgment

Plaintiff petitioner Abdur Razzaque Sardar sought for the custody of his minor daughter Rekha presently aged about 15 years and 9 months. Rekha appeared before the trial court as a court witness and expressed her willingness to live with her mother who was divorced long ago by petitioner Abdur Razzaque who had already taken a second wife while her mother Mosammat Jahanara Begum did not as yet take a second husband. The petitioner did not take any care of his minor daughter, nor did he pay any money for her maintenance except giving her small gifts and visiting her at school at times. Under these circumstances, considering the welfare of the child, the High Court Division was right in refusing the custody of Rekha to the petitioner. Abdur Razzaque Sardar Vs.Mosammat Jahanara Begum, 16 BLD(AD)163.

Read with The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985
Section-5
Interim order of custody of children in favour of a Christian mother
Admittedly, the parties are already before a family court, at the instance of the appellant father, in a guardianship proceeding for the children—considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the present interest of the children, and also in consideration of the affidavit sworn by Sharon Laily Begum Jalil before the notary public, Dhaka on 12 March, 1997 and those of her father Shamsul Haque on the same day and on 16 March 1997, all filed in Court, and particularly in view of their undertaking that the children will not be taken out of the jurisdiction of this Court save and except with leave of this Court, it is directed that (1) Jesmin Akhter Jalil (2) Sharlean Akhter Jalil and (3) Mohammad Shah Alam Jalil shall remain in the custody of their mother Sharon Laily Begum Jalil pending disposal of Family Suit. [Para-37] Abdul Jalil & Ors Vs. Mrs. Sharon Laily Begum 6 BLT (AD)-62

Guardianship of minor son—Principle of Islamic Law as to who is entitled to his custody—If the circumstances existed which justified the deprivation of a party of the custody of his child to whose custody lie was entitled under Muslim Law, Courts did not hesitate to do so—Courts power to determine the entitlement of a party to the hizanat is not limited to the mere observance of the age rule—The concept of the welfare of the minor child, whether below or above the age limit, sems to have been of paramount importance—Court rightly appointed the mother in preference to the father guardian of the minor boy for the welfare of the boy. Md. Abdu Baker Siddique Vs. S.M.A. Bakar and others, 6BLD (AD)245

The direction of the High Court Division that the minor sons on attaining the age of 16 years would be at liberty to live with their father and they would be allowed to go to their father forthwith is maintained. Dr. Md. Rashidul Islam vs Morsheda Parveen ( M. M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 2ADC 357

Custody of the son over 7 years of age, the father is not entitled to get custody of that son,the welfare of the minors would be better protected in the custody of the mother as she did not take a second husband and she took service in a School where first son was admitted for proper education if the father is interested to support his sons for better education and maintenance he may send required amount of money to the present guardian i.e. the mother of the sons and she is bound to receive the said money for the benefit of the sons and for satisfaction of her son's father. Further if the sons after attaining the age of 16 years desire to live with the father they may be allowed to go with the father forthwith.
Dr. Md. Rashidul Islam-Vs.-Morsheda Parveen. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 179

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) —Any order to be made under that law if the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of the minor that an order should be made. Hence, all courts of law are bound to keep in mind these salutary provisions of law when dealing with custody, access and other matters which impact the lives of children.
Mainul Islam Chowdhury -Vs.- Rumana Foiz and others. (Civil) 14 ALR (AD) 37-40