Child custody in Bangladesh raises practical questions when parents separate. Where will the child live? Who will make decisions about schooling and healthcare? How will the parents arrange visits and cover the child’s expenses? This guide explains how custody differs from legal guardianship in Bangladesh, reviews court decisions on mothers’ guardianship rights, and outlines the options when visitation is blocked and the father’s duty to maintain the child.

1. The traditional position

For Muslims, the starting point is a split between custody (hizanat) and guardianship. Under classical Muslim law the father is the legal guardian of the minor, while the mother is entitled to physical custody for a limited period, traditionally until a son reaches seven and a daughter reaches puberty. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 reinforced this: Section 19(b) was long read as barring a mother from being appointed guardian while the father was alive and fit.

Even so, Bangladeshi courts have long held that these age rules are not absolute. Under Section 17 of the 1890 Act, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. In Ayesha Khanum v. Major Shabbir Ahmed (46 DLR), the High Court Division held that the personal law of the parties yields to the child’s welfare. A later line of decisions applies the same principle, so the age of seven for boys is a guide, not a fixed rule.

2. Recent judgments on child custody in Bangladesh also raise a separate question: when can a mother be recognised as her child’s legal guardian?

• Mst. Zohra Begum v. Md. Abdul Baten (2019 BLD (HCD) 387): the High Court Division recognised that a mother can be the sole legal guardian even though the father is alive, and even if she remarries a non-mahram, with the child’s welfare and the mother’s role as primary caregiver taking priority.
• BLAST and others v. Bangladesh (HCD, 24 January 2023): a landmark ruling recognising mothers as legal guardians, in a case that began with the requirement that a father’s name be given in official forms concerning children. It is widely treated as the turning point in the law on maternal guardianship.
• The Azmeri Haque Badhon case (2024): on 22 April 2024 the actress became the first mother recognised as sole guardian of her child in this way. The High Court also examined Section 19(b) against Articles 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution, and the Daily Star has since reported that the court declared the provision unconstitutional. Readers should check the final order and any appeal before relying on it.
• Recent revisional decisions: in Saima Haque (Civil Revision No. 267 of 2023) and Abdul Basit v. … (Civil Revision No. 3958 of 2024), the High Court Division again discussed a mother’s custody and guardianship, with welfare as the test.

What this means in practice. A mother does not automatically win sole guardianship. She must still persuade the Family Court (or the High Court in a writ) that the arrangement serves the child’s welfare. But the old argument that she is legally incapable of being guardian has lost its force. Factors courts look at include who has been the primary caregiver, the child’s age and wishes, each parent’s stability and means, any remarriage, and any allegation of neglect or abuse.

3. When visitation is blocked: Article 102 and habeas corpus

A parent who is denied access to the child by the other parent is not left without a remedy. Article 102(2)(b)(i) of the Constitution lets the High Court Division examine whether a person is being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner. The writ can be used against a private person, including a parent.

When a dispute over child custody in Bangladesh also involves blocked visitation, the first question is whether there is already a court order governing access.

• In Abdul Jalil v. Sharon Laily Begum Jalil (1997), the court held that a mother whose children were held by the father could move the High Court Division under Article 102 for custody, in the children’s interest.
• In M. Nazim Uddin v. Bangladesh (Writ Petition No. 8978 of 2021, 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 128), grandparents petitioned after the mother did not allow them to visit the minors. The court spoke with the children, noted that they were comfortable with their mother, and treated welfare as decisive, observing that neither custody nor visitation is a matter of absolute right.
• In Writ Petition No. 6592 of 2021 (a cross-border custody dispute between a Bangladeshi father and a Japanese mother), the High Court considered the children’s welfare independently of a foreign decree and granted the mother visitation. The Appellate Division later placed the children with the mother, with visitation for the father until the Family Court decided the matter.
• In Writ Petition No. 12525 of 2021, the High Court kept in place an interim order securing a father’s visitation while the matter continued.

A caution. Habeas corpus is not a shortcut around the Family Court. In a recent decision (Writ Petition No. 6783 of 2026), the High Court Division held that a young child living with the mother, with no proof of unfitness, neglect or abuse, is not in “unlawful detention”. It said the dispute is really about custody and guardianship and belongs before the Family Court, unless the facts clearly show unlawful detention. A writ is therefore strongest where the other parent has defied a court order on custody or visitation, or has plainly concealed the child or cut off all contact. In other cases, the usual route is an application under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court, and enforcement of any visitation order there.

4. Custody does not shift the financial burden: the father still pays

A mother who is granted custody or even sole guardianship does not lose her child’s right to be maintained by the father. Under Muslim law the duty to maintain minor children rests on the father, and the Supreme Court’s published judgments state it plainly: the fact that children are with the mother in their infancy does not release the father from the obligation to maintain them (see Civil Revision No. 474 of 2022).

A High Court Division judgment delivered on 16 June 2026 by Justice Abdur Rahman (reported by Prothom Alo on 17 July 2026) is the clearest recent statement. The husband claimed he had divorced his wife, but he failed to prove the divorce before the Family Court, which decreed unpaid dower and maintenance for the couple’s minor daughter. He then filed a fresh declaratory suit to stall execution. The High Court discharged his Rule and held that:

• a minor child’s right to maintenance is an independent legal right that does not depend on whether the parents are in a marital dispute;
• even if the validity of a divorce is disputed, the responsibility to maintain the child remains with the father;
• a father cannot suspend payment because the divorce question is unresolved; and
• executing a final decree cannot be blocked by filing a fresh suit.

The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985 provides the forum, and the Family Court can decree maintenance for the child and enforce it.

5. Practical takeaways

If you are preparing for a dispute over child custody in Bangladesh, start by gathering records of the child’s daily care, schooling and existing visitation arrangements.

• For mothers: a claim to sole legal guardianship is now realistic, but it must be built on evidence of the child’s welfare. Keep records of caregiving, schooling, health and expenses.
• For fathers: guardianship rights are not what they were, but visitation and a role in the child’s life are still protected, and maintenance remains your obligation whatever the custody outcome.
• For both parents: if visitation is obstructed, start with the Family Court. Use Article 102 where there is clear defiance of a court order or genuinely unlawful detention.
• For the child: courts increasingly speak to children directly, so a child’s own wishes can weigh heavily.

Sources and further reading

Supreme Court of Bangladesh published judgments (supremecourt.gov.bd), including Civil Revision Nos. 267 of 2023, 3958 of 2024 and 474 of 2022, and Writ Petition Nos. 6592 of 2021, 12525 of 2021 and 6783 of 2026; 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 128; Prothom Alo, “Father remains liable for child maintenance despite marital disputes: HC” (17 July 2026); The Daily Star, Law & Our Rights (guardianship laws, November 2025); Dhaka Tribune coverage of the Badhon case (April 2024).

Disclaimer: this post is for general information. Law and case outcomes change and depend on individual facts. Please consult a qualified Bangladeshi family lawyer before acting, and verify citations against the full judgments.