Bombay High Court Sets Aside Order Giving Child Custody to Father
The Bombay High Court has set aside a Family Court order that transferred the interim custody of a minor boy to his father, ruling that the trial court relied on "regressive" and "stereotypical" notions regarding a wife's role rather than assessing the child's welfare. A division bench headed by Justice Bharati Dangre allowed an appeal filed by the mother, permitting her to retain custody of the child.
Under the High Court ruling, the father, who resides in Singapore, has been granted in-person access to the child once every three months. He has also been granted video conferencing access with his son at least once a week. The father had earlier approached the court seeking interim custody as well as permission to relocate the child to Singapore.
The couple married in 2012, and their son was born in 2016. The family subsequently moved to Singapore in 2022. Following matrimonial disputes, the mother returned to Pune with the child in March 2025, where the boy has been residing with her ever since.
The custody dispute was earlier remanded by the High Court to the Family Court for a fresh decision, accompanied by specific directions instructing the trial court to concentrate on the welfare of the child rather than the personal disputes between the parents. However, the High Court found that the Family Court again emphasized allegations and counter-allegations between the spouses and selectively focused on the mother's perceived faults.
The division bench was particularly critical of the Family Court judge's observations regarding the mother's alleged failure to perform the "pious duties of a wife towards her husband" and her role in "nurturing the home." The trial judge had concluded that such concepts appeared "foreign" to her and had remarked that "the future of the Child is not safe" in her company.
The High Court termed those observations "unwarranted and unsubstantiated" and "regressive," noting that they reinforce stereotypical notions about matrimonial relationships. The bench stated that judges, more than others, should be mindful of being circumspect about making observations unconnected with the facts involved.
Setting aside the May 16 order, the High Court observed that the trial judge failed to independently evaluate the child's physical, emotional, educational, or psychological welfare and relied instead on irrelevant considerations and preconceived notions. The court noted there was no imminent danger or neglect requiring an immediate change of custody, pointing out that the boy is well settled in Pune, attends school, and maintains strong emotional bonds with his maternal grandparents, extended family, and social circle.
