Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently denied custody of a three-year-old child to the father, noting that the allegations against him included violent and abusive conduct that was not in the best interest of the child.

“A perusal of the custody petition filed by the respondent reveals that serious allegations are made against the petitioner, and all the allegations were about the violent and abusive conduct of the petitioner, which concern the safety of the child and can adversely impact his healthy and safe upbringing,” the order reads.

The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, was hearing a petition filed by the father of the child. The father was seeking custody of the child from his wife.

The couple married in 2018 in New York after the birth of a child in March 2020.

Following six months of marital discord, they relocated to Singapore. After surrendering their US green card, the mother moved to Thane in Maharashtra, two months later.

Subsequently, the husband approached the Singapore court for child custody, which was granted. The husband then filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, seeking to direct the wife to comply with the Singapore court’s order.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, representing the husband, argued that the child was brought to India illegally.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Lata Desai, representing the wife, argued that the wife had moved to India due to the abusive behaviour of the husband.

The division bench observed that the crucial factor to be considered is that the child is a girl of tender age, three-and-a-half years old, and thus, requires the care and affection of her mother.

"…one more important factor to be considered is that the child is a girl of a tender age of three and half years and thus requires the care and affection of her mother. Considering the past conduct of the petitioner having anger issues, it will not be safe to hand over custody of the child to him. We have held that the respondent is justified in her decision to come to India and not return to Singapore,” the order states.

The division bench also noted that the husband agreed to not have unsupervised access to the child until the wife consented to it. Despite a reconciliation agreement, a police complaint was filed in the USA and subsequently in Singapore. Eventually, the wife came to India with the child and declined to return to Singapore.

The bench proceeded to dismiss the petition, stating that the matter regarding access/visitation rights, should be considered by the court of competent jurisdiction.

Case title: ABC vs XYZ