The Bombay High Court recently denied the custody plea of a 41-year-old father for his 3-year-old daughter, citing his anger issues. The bench, comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, heard the habeas corpus petition filed by the father, a UK citizen, for the custody of his daughter, a US citizen. The child currently resides with her mother, an Indian citizen, in Mumbai.
The court considered the father’s past conduct, noting allegations of abuse towards the child’s 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,” the court stated. The primary concern was the welfare of the child, leading to the decision that she should remain with her mother in India.
According to the petition, the parents married in December 2018 in New York and had their child in March 2020. Disputes arose soon after the child’s birth, leading to a marriage reconciliation agreement in 2021. The couple then decided to move to Singapore in 2022, leasing a property and enrolling their child in an international preschool. However, in November 2022, while the father was in the UK, the mother returned to India with the child and refused to go back.
The father sought custody through a Singapore court, obtaining an order for joint custody. He approached the Bombay High Court to enforce this order. The mother opposed the plea, citing the father’s violent and abusive behavior in Singapore and asserting she returned to India for the child’s safety, based on advice from Singapore police.
In his petition, the father claimed the mother illegally brought the child to India from Singapore. He argued that the child was familiar with her Singapore residence and should return there. However, the court rejected this, noting the child had spent only seven months in Singapore, which is insufficient time to develop roots, especially considering her young age. The court emphasized the need for the child’s mother’s care and affection at this tender age.
The court also highlighted the couple’s history of domestic violence, with a signed agreement outlining the father’s responsibility for therapy, legal fees, and supervised child access. Despite this agreement, the mother filed complaints about his behavior in both Singapore and India.
After considering the father’s past actions, the court found the mother’s actions justified. “The respondent is justified in coming to India along with the child, and it cannot be said that she has illegally detained the child in India,” the court noted. It declined to delve into the merits of the case, as custody proceedings are pending in both Indian and Singaporean courts.
The Court dismissed the petition, prioritizing the child’s welfare and need for a stable, caring environment.
Case Title: R v State of Maharashtra (2023:BHC-AS:36261-DB)
