Bombay High Court quashes order giving child custody to father in Singapore

“The family court has not considered the fact that, from June 2025, the child was admitted to a school in Pune. There is continuity in his life in the custody of his mother, and he is well settled in Pune, sharing strong emotional bonds with his maternal grandparents, extended family members, and social circle in Pune,” the court said on September 2.

The ruling found out that it is rather perturbing that the judge of the family court has proceeded to sermonise and set out the so-called duties of a pious wife towards her husband as a basis to observe that it would be in the best interest of the child to be with his father.

The court strongly objected to the family court’s stereotypical observations about the mother and said that, as if the moralistic sermon was not enough, the family court uses proverbs to make casual, stereotypical, and generalised observations about the relationship between the minor child and his grandfather and makes scathing remarks against the mother based on the fact that she is the “Bahu” of the family.

“The family court has emphasised the allegations and counter-allegations between the mother and the father, rather selectively focusing on the perceived faults of the mother. Illustratively, there is an observation that the appellant has forgotten that the respondent is the ‘Janak Pita’ of their child and that she has not said a single word that she is ready to ‘patch up’ with him but is only expecting huge monetary assistance,” it observed.

Mother challenged interim custody transfer

A couple got married in March 2012 in Pune. Their son was born in March 2016.
The child lived and attended school in Pune until July 2022, when the family moved to Singapore. He was subsequently enrolled in school there.

Matrimonial disputes later arose between the couple, including allegations of domestic violence and emotional abuse. In March 2025, the mother returned to India with the child, and the child remained in her custody in Pune.

The father subsequently approached the family court seeking custody of the child. The family court initially passed an order concerning visitation, but the high court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the court to focus on the welfare of the child.

Meanwhile, in July, 2025, the Family Justice Courts of Singapore passed an order granting custody of the child to the father. The father also filed habeas corpus proceedings in India, which eventually reached the Supreme Court and were withdrawn in June this year.

After the matter was reconsidered, the family court in India, in May, ordered that the child’s interim custody be restored to the father and that he be relocated to Singapore. The mother challenged this order before the high court.

Mother was using the child as pawn: Father

Appearing for the mother, advocate Akshay Petkar, along with Abhishek Salian, submitted that the family court’s order transferring the child’s interim custody to the father was contrary to the settled principle that the welfare, emotional well-being, stability, and wishes of the child are paramount.

It was argued that custody was transferred at an interim stage, without a full trial, evidence, psychological assessment, or independent welfare evaluation.

Representing the father, advocate Abhijeet Sarwate defended the family court’s order and contended that it had properly considered the welfare of the child and had sufficient material to conclude that the mother was using the child as a pawn and had instigated him against his father.

While remanding the matter back, the court observed that the family court had emphasised the troubled relationship between the husband and wife. However, it seems that this observation did not have its desired effect, as can be seen in the present order.

Litigation does not disqualify parent: Order

The court held that the welfare of the child is the sole and paramount consideration in deciding even interim custody under the Guardians and Wards Act. The court must assess whether there are sufficient and compelling reasons to immediately change the child’s existing custody.

The court found that the family court failed to independently assess the child’s welfare before ordering his transfer to the father. Instead, it relied heavily on the matrimonial disputes and allegations between the parents.

Noting that the family court had observed that the mother had instituted several litigations against the father at every level, which showed that she was “fighting tooth and nail” for material possessions, the court said the family court had concluded that it did not see a good future for the child in the mother’s custody. The high court remarked that this conclusion was not only speculative but also based on a preconceived notion that merely because a parent litigates against the other, he or she is disqualified from being entitled to the custody of the child.

The court also found the family court’s reliance on untested WhatsApp messages problematic. While saying electronic evidence required a full-fledged trial, the family court nevertheless relied on such messages to conclude that the child was being influenced by the mother.