Further, few helpful “reasoning” for your kind preview to build up your clients case;
1. In Shoib @ Shebu v. Sabir Ali the Allahabad High Court while conceding the entitlement of the mother the custody of her male child until he has completed the age of seven years held that the welfare of the child would be kept in view before deciding the custody. In that case in fact the son who was only 4 years of age was allowed to remain with the father and the Court without arriving at any adverse conclusions regarding the mother's character or conduct decided that it was in the paramount interest of the 4 year old son to allow him to remain with the father and the father's family.
Re.: 1986 (II) DMC 505 at 506 (All, HC)
2. In Bilkis w/o Munne Khan v. Munne Khan, a Mohammedan wife who was living separately from her husband filed a petition for custody of her minor son aged about 2 1/2 years. It was found that she was residing at a distance from the husband's home and neglecting the child even when their relations were cordial. On these facts the court held that it was not in the interest of the welfare of the child though the child was of tender years to give his custody to the wife. Custody of the child therefore was given to the father.
Re.: 1987 (32) M.P.L.J. 430
3. In Y. Varalakshmi v. Kanta Durga Prasad, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave custody of 5 year old boy to the father in the interests of the child. The child had been happily residing with the father and his parents when the mother had applied for custody. The trial court refused custody to the mother and the appeal court upheld the refusal.
Re.: (1989) 1 DMC 379
4. In Lekh Raj Kukreja v. Smt Raymon, the Court was concerned with the question of the interim custody of a minor male child aged 11 years. The trial court gave the custody to the mother on the ground that the minor son would then be in the company of his sister whose custody was with the mother. Further in revision it was held that the father was the natural guardian and that the welfare of the child also demanded that he should be in the custody of his father especially as the child himself also showed an inclination to stay with the father
Re.: 1989 (38) DLT 137
5. In Shailaja J. Erram v. Jayant V. Erram, once again the same question was decided by a Bench of the Bombay High Court in the same manner. In this case the mother was a working woman and remained outside the home until 4 p.m. The minor - a son - expressed his desire to reside with his father. The Court found that the minor was getting his education properly and that the aged parents of the father were in a position to look after the minor for the whole of the day. In these circumstances the Court came to the conclusion that the welfare of the minor demanded that he should be with the father and his family and not with the mother.
Re.: 1990 (2) Mah LR 492