The Bombay High Court has refused to transfer the interim custody of an 11-year-old girl to her biological parents, holding that an abrupt change at this stage would not promote her welfare.
Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed a writ petition filed by the girl’s biological parents, while directing that their application for permanent custody be decided expeditiously by the District Court, Kalyan.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Yogesh Gangaram Sanap and Rupali Yogesh Sanap, are the biological parents of the child, referred to in the judgment as ‘Y’. The child was born on December 1, 2014.
According to the parents, when ‘Y’ was about three months old, they temporarily gave her custody to their neighbour and his wife, who were childless. They later alleged that the arrangement was misused and that the child was enrolled in school under the name “Ovi Anil Raghav”.
The respondent, however, claimed that the child had been given to him and his wife in adoption in January 2015. The parents disputed this claim.
The dispute eventually reached the District Court, where the parents sought permanent custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Pending that case, they also sought interim custody under Section 12. The District Judge rejected the interim request after interviewing the child.
Court’s Observation
Justice Jamadar noted that ‘Y’ had remained with the respondent and his wife since she was barely two months old. The Court also interacted with the child and found that she clearly preferred continuing with the respondent and his wife.
The High Court acknowledged that the child’s preference could not by itself decide the custody dispute. However, it could not simply be ignored, particularly when considered alongside the child’s long-standing living arrangements, schooling and emotional stability.
“Whether the transfer of custody at an interim stage would promote the welfare of child? Would it be conducive for or impede the development of the child? Whether the transfer of the custody would have an adverse impact on the state of mind and psychological well-being of the child? Are there sufficient and compelling reasons to transfer the custody of the child during the pendency of the Application for the permanent custody?” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the initial custody appeared to have been voluntarily entrusted and remained without objection for several years. By the time the dispute escalated, the child had spent almost 10 years with the respondent and his wife.
The High Court held that the welfare principle applies even where custody is sought from a person who is neither the biological parent nor the lawful guardian.
It noted that the child’s welfare includes emotional, ethical, intellectual and overall development, and that stability and continuity can assume particular importance when interim custody is being considered.
The Court also clarified that the allegations concerning adoption and the competing claims of the parties would require examination by the District Court after evidence is recorded.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the District Judge, Kalyan, to decide the pending permanent custody application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from September 8, 2026.
Until that decision, the biological parents were granted access to ‘Y’ every Friday and Saturday for three hours at a place to be specified by the District Judge. The Court also clarified that its observations on interim custody would not influence the final determination of the permanent custody dispute.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and no costs were imposed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Yogesh Gangaram Sanap & Anr. v. Anil Mahadev Raghav
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3975 of 2023
- Judge: Justice N.J. Jamadar
- Decision Date: 31 August 2026
