The Bombay High Court recently expressed displeasure with a Pune Family Court for sermonising and setting out the so-called 'pious' duties of a wife towards her husband and handing over a minor boy's custody to his father. The High Court held that Judges must be 'mindful' while making observations and avoid making any 'unwarranted' or 'unconnected' remarks. 

For context, Family Court Judge Ganesh Ghule had passed an order on May 16 granting the custody of a minor boy to his father, after observing that if a woman does not perform these 'pious' duties towards her husband, then future of their child is 'unsafe' with her

The woman in this case then petitioned a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan challenging the observations and findings against her. 

The bench, having perused the impugned order, criticised the Judge for perpetuating the 'stereotypes' and 'erroneous notions' about marital relations. 

"The Family Court observes that the Mother has instituted several litigations against the Father at every level which shows that she is fighting tooth and nail for material possessions and hence, he holds that he does not see the good future of the child in the custody of the Mother. This conclusion is not only speculative but also based upon a preconceived notion that only because a parent litigates against the other, he/she is disqualified to be entitled to the custody of the child. There is an observation that the Mother has forgotten that the Father is the 'Janak Pita' of their child and that she has not exhibited a single word that she is ready to 'patch-up' with him but is only expecting huge monetary assistance. 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 judges observed in the September 1 order. 

The order authored by Justice Chavan, further takes exception to the 'proverbs' used by Family Court against the mother and the stereotypical comments made against her by calling her a 'Bahu' of the family. 

"As if the moralistic sermon was not enough, the Family Court uses proverbs to make casual stereotypical and generalized observations about relation between the minor child and his grandfather and makes scathing remarks against the Mother on the basis of the fact that she is the 'Bahu' of the family. The observations of the Judge of the Family Court setting out the so called pious duties of a wife or expecting her to act as the 'Bahu' of the family are, to our mind not only unwarranted and unsubstantiated but also regressive which tend to perpetuate and reinforce stereotypical and erroneous notions about matrimonial relations. We cant help but observe that Judges, more than others should be mindful of being circumspect about making such observations, unconnected with the facts involved," Justice Chavan has observed. 

The judges also criticised the Family Court Judge for making 'self-contradicting' observations without any material to support the same and also for premising the impugned order on his own stereotypes. 

"The self-contradicting observations which are unsubstantiated and without any basis show that the Judge of the Family Court has based his findings on the foundation of his perceptions, notions, stereotypical beliefs about matrimonial relations and assumptions about human behaviour and not on the exercise that he was required to carry out viz. to independently assess as to who between the two parents was more suited to have the interim custody of the child, what was the imminent urgency if any in handing over the custody of the child from one parent to another and most importantly, to carry out an independent assessment based on the record of the case to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as to whether the interim order of custody was in the interest and for the welfare of the child," the bench pointed out. 

With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the Family Court order and permitted the Mother to retain the custody of the minor child. However, she has been ordered to allow visitation by the Father. 

Appearance:

Advocates Akshay Petkar and Abhishek Salian instructed by Nyaaya Legal appeared for the Mother.

Advocate Abhijeet Sarwate represented the Father. 

Case Title: KAG vs AAG [Family Court Appeal (Stamp No) 16488 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment