Mumbai: Bombay High Court has set aside a family court’s order that directed a woman to hand over interim custody of her 10-year-old son to his father in Singapore, noting there was no independent assessment of the child’s welfare.
“It is rather perturbing that the judge 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,” said Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish Chavan on Tuesday.
The child was born in March 2016. Around July 2022, the family shifted to Singapore. Due to disputes, the mother returned with the child in March 2025. On the father’s application for interim custody and relocation to Singapore, FC in May 2025 set out a schedule for visit/access to the son. On his appeal, HC on Feb 13 remanded the matter to FC to decide interim custody. On May 16, FC directed the boy’s custody to be handed to his father. The wife appealed in HC.
Her advocate Akshay Petkar said FC granted irreversible custody even before the trial concluded. The judges noted that while remanding the matter, HC had observed that FC had emphasised the couple’s troubled relationship.
However, FC once again repeated it, “rather selectively focusing on the perceived fault of the appellant-mother.”
It set out “pious duties” of a wife towards her husband including caring for him physically and emotionally. FC observed that the wife has forgotten her husband is “the ‘Janak Pita’ of their child”. “As if the moralistic sermon was not enough,” FC used “proverbs” to make “casual stereotypical and generalised observations” about child-paternal grandfather’s relationship and “scathing remarks” against the mother based on the fact “that she is ‘Bahu’ of the family.”
FC judge’s observations “setting out so-called pious duties of a wife or expecting her to act as the Bahu …are not only unwarranted and unsubstantiated but also regressive which tend to perpetuate and reinforce stereotypical and erroneous notions about matrimonial relations,” the judges said. Further, “judges… should be mindful of making such observations, unconnected with facts involved.”
HC said FC “has not identified any imminent danger, neglect or circumstance demonstrating that the continuation of the child in the mother’s custody is detrimental to him.” Setting aside the May 16 order, HC permitted the mother to retain the child’s custody. It directed her to grant physical access of the son to his father once every three months and during holidays and a weekly video call. HC directed FC to decide the main custody matter expeditiously.
