Child not ‘pawn’: Court orders father to return son taken from school against custody decree

Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M referred to comprehensive child custody guidelines approved by the Calcutta High Court in September 2025. (AI-enhanced image)

“It is unfortunate that the child is being treated like a pawn in the hands of the parents. The parents are not expected to behave irresponsibly. In our view, the child should now be returned to the mother, who shall continue to be the guardian of the child unless and until the order of the Family Court is modified,” the court said on June 1, directing that custody of the child be restored to the mother.

Mother moved HC after child taken away

• The case stemmed from a custody arrangement formalised through a compromise decree passed by the family court, Attingal, on June 24, 2025, under which permanent custody of the child was granted to the mother.
• According to the petition, the father subsequently removed the child from school without informing the mother and continued to retain custody despite the subsisting decree.
• Claiming that her son was being unlawfully kept away from her, the mother approached the high court through a habeas corpus petition seeking his immediate return.

‘Boy expressed desire to stay with mother’

• During the hearing, the judges independently interacted with the child as well as both parents.
• The court recorded that the child ultimately expressed a clear desire to stay with his mother.
• Although he initially stated that he wished to go with his father, the bench noted that the statement did not appear to have been made entirely of his own free will.
• The judges further observed that there could be no doubt that the father had taken custody of the child in violation of the family court decree.

‘Father should have approached court’

• The father argued that the child had made complaints against the mother during an interaction at school and that circumstances warranted a change in the custody arrangement.
• Rejecting the justification, the high court said that even if such concerns existed, the father was required to seek modification of the decree before the family court.
• The bench observed that while circumstances may arise requiring a custody order to be revisited, no parent can bypass legal procedures and unilaterally assume custody in defiance of a court order.
• The court remarked that the father ought to have filed an application for modification of the compromise decree rather than taking the law into his own hands.

Failed to return boy

During the proceedings, the father’s counsel referred to execution proceedings pending before the family court and an order dated April 24, under which the child was apparently allowed to stay with him for a few days before being returned to the mother.

The high court noted that more than a month had passed since that order, but the child had not been returned.

Observing that the habeas corpus petition had been filed on May 24, the bench said it was prima facie of the view that the father had breached the assurance given before the family court by failing to restore custody to the mother.

‘Child’s welfare must override parental conflict’

Stressing that custody disputes should never become an extension of matrimonial battles, the court reiterated that the welfare of the child must remain paramount.

The bench held that the mother would continue as the child’s guardian unless and until the family court modified the existing custody arrangement.

The court also recorded that the child was present before it and that custody was handed over to the mother in court itself.

HC endorses child-centric custody framework

• In an important development with wider implications for family law cases in Kerala, the high court referred to comprehensive child access and custody guidelines approved by the Calcutta High Court in September 2025.
• The bench said those guidelines, along with parenting plans, may be followed by family courts in Kerala until a committee constituted to examine the framework submits its recommendations and formal rules are framed.
• The court also directed the registrar general to circulate the guidelines to district judges, family courts, and magistrates dealing with custody disputes, matrimonial matters, and cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Social investigation report ordered

• To assist in future proceedings, the court directed a child welfare officer to submit a social investigation report regarding the child before the family court in the pending execution proceedings.
• At the same time, the bench clarified that its observations in the habeas corpus case should not influence the family court while deciding the execution matter.
• The court further directed both parents to strictly comply with the terms of the compromise decree as it presently stands.

Mediation proceedings pending

The high court was informed that mediation proceedings relating to matrimonial disputes between the parties are ongoing.

Expressing hope that the parents would act responsibly, the bench said it trusted that they would take informed decisions, keeping the welfare and future of their child at the centre of their choices. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

‘Disturbing’: Bombay High Court warns mother against ‘possessiveness’, depriving 8-year-old son of father’s love

The Bombay High Court has flagged what it described as the “possessiveness” of a mother towards her eight-year-old son while hearing a custody and visitation dispute, observing that excessive resistance to the father’s access could emotionally distance the child from him and adversely affect the boy’s development.

A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing an interim application filed by the father in a pending family court appeal seeking vacation access to his minor son during the summer break from May 1 to May 31.

“What we have noted is, the possessiveness of the mother, the custodial parent and we are informed by the learned counsel representing the wife that the child has been referred to a Psychologist. We really find this to be disturbing as had the child been permitted to enjoy the company of both his parents i.e. mother and father and since we are of the view that the presence of both the parents in the life of the child is of great significance, which assist him in developing into a healthy individual, and if this would be permitted, probably there would be no need for the child to be referred to Psychologist,” the court said on May 6.

Father granted access

The Bombay High Court permitted the father to keep the child with him from May 15 to May 20 and again from June 1 to June 6. He was directed to pick up the child from the mother’s residence at 9 am and return him at 6 pm on the final day of each access period.

The court also directed that while the child remained with the father, the mother must be allowed telephonic and video interaction with the child and that such communication should not be obstructed.

In addition, the Bombay High Court also directed the mother to continue complying with the earlier visitation arrangement under which the father would have access to the child every Sunday between 10 am and 5 pm, subject to him picking up the child from her residence.