Bombay High Court Rejects Father's Plea For Custody Of 3-Year-Old Girl Child Citing His Anger Management Issues

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a 41-year-old UK citizen seeking custody of his 3-year-old daughter from his estranged wife, an Indian citizen.A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, while rejecting the plea, emphasized that it would not be safe to hand over custody to the father due to his reported anger issues and past violent behaviour.“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”, the court held.The couple, who got married in 2018 in New York, faced marital disputes leading to a six-month separation from July 2021 to December 2021 after the child's birth in March 2020. After signing a reconciliation agreement on December 20, 2021, they lived together in the USA. The family later moved to Singapore in April 2022, securing employment and enrolling their child in a preschool. However, marital issues persisted, and in September 2022, the wife returned to India with the daughter and did not go back to Singapore. Subsequently, the husband filed a plea in a Singapore court, which granted joint custody of the child.When the man approached the Bombay High Court in February seeking compliance with the Singapore court's order, the High Court raised concerns about the child's welfare. The court noted that the child, at three and a half years old, had not developed roots in the USA, Singapore, or India. Emphasizing the paramount importance of the child's welfare, the court concluded that she should remain with her mother in India. The court reiterated that the child's best interest cannot be overshadowed by issues such as the comity of courts, foreign court orders or citizenship.The court highlighted that the child had lived in the USA for two years and in Singapore for only seven months before coming to India. The lack of stability due to the parents' disputes prevented the child from developing roots in any specific location, the court said.The court considered serious allegations made by the wife against the husband regarding violent behaviour and anger issues. Police complaints filed in the USA and Singapore, along with a temporary restraining order, were taken into account. The court found these allegations to be justifiable reasons for the wife's decision to come to India with the child for safety.Despite the parties signing a reconciliation agreement, including the husband's agreement to reimburse legal fees related to domestic violence actions and attend anger management sessions, the court noted ongoing issues. Complaints and incidents persisted even after the agreement, raising concerns about the child's safety.The court recognized the wife's efforts to reconcile, even after filing police complaints against the husband's alleged violent and abusive conduct. The petitioner had agreed to no unsupervised access to the child, but police complaints continued both in the USA and Singapore, said the court.Considering the mother's Indian citizenship, roots in India, and support from her parents, the court found India to provide a better and safer environment for the child's upbringing. It highlighted the mother's financial independence and the lack of evidence supporting the husband's claim that the child's needs were solely met by him in Singapore.Emphasizing the tender age of the child (three and a half years) and the need for maternal care and affection, the court deemed it unsafe to hand over custody to the father, given his past conduct.The court stressed that the child's right to have the company of both parents should not be compromised, even amid the parents' disputes. It noted that the woman, despite the legal battle, kept the petitioner informed about the child's welfare and permitted video calls between the father and the minor daughter.The court concluded that the ongoing custody proceedings in India and Singapore should address issues related to visitation rights and access. Accordingly, the court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, emphasizing that its observations were specific to the summary inquiry for the writ petition. It clarified that the judgment wouldn't influence the custody proceedings pending in courts in India and Singapore, which would be decided on their merits.Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 512 of 2023Case Title – ABC v. XYZClick Here To Read/Download Judgment

Bombay High Court Rejects Father's Plea For Custody Of 3-Year-Old Girl Child Citing His Anger Management Issues

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags