The Madras High Court held that the welfare of the child is paramount and appointed a Hindu man as the legal guardian of a Muslim minor girl after finding that the child had been cared for by him and his wife from birth.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed a Hindu man to become the legal guardian of a Muslim minor girl.
A Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is religion-neutral.
The Court also said that the welfare of the child must remain the most important consideration.
The judgment was delivered on April 28, 2026, in S. Balaji v. M.A. Mahaboobani, C.M.A.(MD) No.423 of 2026.
The appellant filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
He challenged the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai, on September 29, 2025, in G.W.O.P. No.154 of 2025.
Earlier, the Family Court had dismissed his plea to become guardian of the minor child, H. Sabana Banu @ Shri Daanvika.
The Family Court noted that the appellant and his wife were Hindus, while the child was born as a Muslim.
The appellant had moved the Family Court under Sections 4(2), 7, 8, 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
He sought appointment as legal guardian of the minor girl until she attained majority.
According to him, he married Gurulakshmi in 2012. However, the couple did not have a child.
The respondent, M.A. Mahaboobani, lived nearby and had known the couple for more than 10 years.
The respondent had three children. Her third child was born on December 14, 2023.
The appellant claimed that the respondent worked as a daily labourer and struggled to provide basic amenities to all three children.
Therefore, she voluntarily gave the third female child to the appellant and his wife for adoption.
Before the High Court, the respondent supported the appellant’s case. She said she had lost her husband and could not provide basic support to all three children.
She also told the Court that she had taken a conscious decision to give her third child to the appellant and his wife.
During the hearing, the appellant, his wife, the respondent and two of the respondent’s children appeared before the Court.
The Court recorded that the appellant and his wife had cared for the child from birth.
It also noted that the child called the appellant “father” and his wife “mother”.
In contrast, the child referred to her biological mother as “aunty”.
The respondent’s other two children also told the Court that the appellant and his wife had always brought up the minor child.
The High Court said it was fully satisfied that the appellant and his wife were genuinely raising the child as their own.
The Court also noted that the child recognised them as her parents.
Therefore, the Bench held that appointing the appellant as legal guardian would serve the welfare of the child.
The Bench referred to Section 8(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act.
It noted that any person who desires or claims to be the guardian of a minor may apply for such appointment.
The Court said the law permits any such person to seek legal guardianship.
The High Court then referred to Section 17 of the Act.
It said the Court must consider several factors while appointing a guardian. These include the child’s age, sex and religion, and the character and capacity of the proposed guardian.
However, the Court said the welfare of the child remains the primary factor.
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 1.
That case dealt with adoption in the context of Muslim law.
The High Court noted that Islamic law does not treat an adopted child on par with a biological child.
However, it also recognised the “Kafala” system. Under this system, a child is placed under a Kafil, who looks after the child’s well-being and financial support.
The High Court held that the Guardians and Wards Act recognises the appellant’s right to seek appointment as legal guardian.
It also said the Court acts as parens patriae while applying the Act.
Therefore, the Court must decide the issue in the best welfare of the child.
The Bench further held that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 applies to every person who seeks guardianship of a minor.
The Court found that the child had lived with the appellant and his wife from birth.
It also found that she recognised them as her parents.
Moreover, the Bench accepted the credentials of the appellant and his wife.
It also took note of the wholehearted consent given by the respondent.
Accordingly, the Madras High Court appointed S. Balaji as the legal guardian of the minor female child, H. Sabana Banu @ Shri Daanvika.
The Court set aside the Family Court order dated September 29, 2025, and allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
No costs were imposed.
