Yesterday, I was told about certain tragedy that happened in 2002 Gujrat communal riots. I do not want to get into socio-religious mumbo-jumbo, but I’ll have to include those details here, for that is how is Indian society. Here, in this country or maybe the entire world, you have to mention your religion in all civil matters. ‘Atheist’ in the ‘Religion’ column of forms won’t do! Anyway, the story goes something like this:
A Mohammedan family, A, found their lost son, M, six years after the 2002 Gujarat riots. M is living with his foster parents, F, who are Hindus. It has been confirmed in DNA tests that A are M’s) birth parents.
The birth parents want their son back. The family F who don’t have their own offspring want Vivek to stay with them. The boy himself (he was 3 when A lost and F found him; he is 9 years old now) wants to live in the family F.
The case was taken to the local court, and it was ruled that M stayed in his current family with his foster parents.
Legally, the right to custody is with the birth parents, now since they are alive.
The common wisdom suggests the family who can take better care of the child should get the custody, despite it breaks some hearts. Legal wisdom has its own place too.
I’ve discussed and thought a lot on this issue. After all the thought, I could not settle the problem. One of my friends and I think the problems like this fall into what we call ‘social paradoxes’. Who do you think the boy should stay with? On what criteria do you chose the custodians of the boy? This can be one criteria: the better future of the boy! There can be several others. Which one sounds reasonable to you?