In a significant Pune Family Court child custody dispute, the Family Court No. 8, Pune directed a mother to hand over interim custody of her minor son to the father. The Court held that the child’s welfare would be better served with the father. Notably, Judge Ganesh Ambadas Ghule passed the order on May 16, 2026, in P.D. No. 23/2025 (G v. G).
Furthermore, the Court partly allowed the father’s application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. It reconsidered the matter after the Bombay High Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.
Background of the Dispute
The parties married in Pune on March 18, 2012, and their son was born on March 16, 2016. Initially, the child studied in Pune until 2022. Later, the family shifted to Singapore for residence and education.
Subsequently, the child enrolled at GIIS International School and later at Wise Oak International School. The father alleged that the mother took the child to India on March 9, 2025, without his consent while he was on a business trip.
According to him, Singapore remained the child’s habitual residence. He also stressed that the child had spent nearly 33 months there before the relocation.
Meanwhile, multiple proceedings arose in both India and Singapore, including custody litigation, habeas corpus petitions, and criminal complaints.
Importantly, the Singapore Family Justice Court granted custody to the father on July 25, 2025. It also directed the mother to return the child to Singapore. However, contempt proceedings later began in Singapore due to alleged non-compliance.
Father’s Arguments
On behalf of the father, Advocate Mr. Sarwate argued that the mother continued to retain the child in India despite a valid Singapore custody order.
He further submitted that:
- Singapore was the child’s habitual residence.
- The child benefited from international education under the Cambridge system.
- He lost regular contact with peers and teachers after relocation.
- The mother repeatedly blocked court-ordered visitation.
- The child was being alienated from him.
- He had both financial stability and emotional capacity to care for the child.
In support, he relied on several Supreme Court rulings on child custody and welfare principles.
Mother’s Arguments
Conversely, Advocate Smt. Katariya opposed the application and defended the child’s stay in Pune.
She argued that:
- The child had adjusted well and was performing academically in Pune.
- The father allegedly subjected her to mental and emotional harassment in Singapore.
- The child expressed a preference to remain with her.
- An interim custody change would harm the child’s welfare.
- India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.
- Allegations against the father required full trial evidence.
Additionally, she relied on school records to show that the child was well-settled in Pune.
Welfare of the Child as the Paramount Factor
The Court emphasized that welfare, not parental rights, must guide interim custody decisions. Therefore, it focused on the child’s best interests rather than rival claims.
At the same time, it noted that serious allegations such as domestic violence and misconduct required full evidence and trial.
Importantly, the Court observed that the child lived in Singapore continuously from 2022 to March 2025. During that period, he built strong educational and social connections.
Moreover, the Court recorded that the father held a senior job in Singapore, maintained financial stability, and had suitable housing and family support.
Evidence of Parental Alienation
After reviewing material on record, the Court found prima facie indications of parental alienation.
Specifically, it examined communication records and noted possible efforts to distance the child from the father. It also considered complaints regarding non-compliance with access orders.
As a result, the Court observed that children should not be used in parental conflicts. It stressed that meaningful access cannot be denied without justification.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the father had been unfairly alienated from the child.
Role of Singapore Custody Order and Comity
In addition, the Court gave weight to the Singapore Family Justice Court’s custody order dated July 25, 2025.
Since Singapore is a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the CPC, the Court treated the foreign order as legally significant.
Likewise, it applied the principle of comity of courts under Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC. It held that valid foreign judgments cannot be ignored casually.
Therefore, the Court observed that the father’s rights under the Singapore order could not be defeated by prolonged litigation in India.
Court’s Final Finding on Welfare
After evaluating all factors, the Court concluded that the child’s welfare presently lay with the father.
It considered the child’s earlier residence in Singapore, educational continuity, and the father’s caregiving capacity. It also assessed the alleged interference with visitation rights.
In light of these circumstances, the Court found that the father was better positioned to ensure the child’s long-term welfare.
Final Directions
Ultimately, the Court passed the following directions:
- The mother must immediately hand over custody to the father.
- However, the Court rejected the request to compel the mother to relocate to Singapore.
- It also refused to mandate continued schooling at a specific Singapore institution.
- Instead, it allowed both parents to decide schooling jointly.
- Meanwhile, the mother received video-call access to the child.
- Both parties must mutually decide the access schedule.
- Finally, costs were left to the outcome of the main case.
Importantly, the Court clarified that these findings are interim and will not influence final adjudication of the guardianship petition.
