In a sensitive custody battle that pitted a father against his own mother, the Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the police to secure the custody of a five-year-old boy from his grandmother and hand him over to his father within two weeks. The ruling came in Pravin Nathalal Parghi vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., pronounced on 4 September 2025 by a division bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad.
Background
The petitioner, Pravin Parghi, works as a mukadam with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. He is the biological father of twin boys born through surrogacy in November 2019. While one son, Lakshya, lives with him, the other - Lavya - has been in the custody of his grandmother, 74-year-old respondent No. 5.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court permits Union of India to convert petition into appeal under Arbitration Act Section 37
According to case records, the arrangement began soon after birth because of health complications in the twins. Over time, however, disputes flared within the family, particularly after the COVID-19 lockdowns eased. Parghi filed custody petitions before the Family Court, but those proceedings remain pending. Meanwhile, his mother lodged police complaints against him under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Senior Citizens Act.
Frustrated with the prolonged separation from one of his sons, Parghi approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition, asking that the child be restored to his custody.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Fully Liable in Utility Vehicle Accident Compensation Dispute
Court's Observations
During arguments, counsel for the petitioner stressed that there was no marital discord and that both parents were ready and able to care for their children. "The twins should not be separated because of family disputes," advocate M. J. Reena Rolland submitted. She cited Supreme Court precedents affirming that natural guardians have the first right to custody unless proven unfit.
The grandmother's lawyers, however, painted a very different picture. They alleged that Parghi and his wife initially treated the twins as a "burden," voluntarily leaving one child in her care. They argued that Lavya had grown emotionally attached to her, and shifting him now would be harmful. They also hinted at property disputes driving the litigation.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape and Atrocities Case, Dismisses State's Appeal
After weighing both sides, the bench took a firm view. Justice Ankhad, delivering the Judgment, observed:
"The petitioner being the biological father and natural guardian has an undisputed legal right to claim custody of his child. Emotional attachment of the grandmother cannot override the rights of natural parents."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Gautam Kumar Das vs NCT of Delhi (2024), where custody was restored to a biological father despite objections from relatives. The judges noted that welfare of the child is paramount, but nothing on record suggested that the father was incapable of providing for him.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail to Rajkumar Jain in SC/ST Atrocities Case from Maharashtra
Decision
The bench partly allowed the petition. It directed the Malad police to secure custody of five-year-old Lavya from the grandmother and hand him to his father within two weeks. To ease transition, the judges permitted the grandmother to visit the child on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. for the first three months, with the option of being accompanied by her daughters.
Concluding the order, the bench stressed:
"The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The biological parents right cannot be curtailed unless their custody is proven detrimental to the child."
With that, the High Court settled, at least for now, an unusually bitter family fight - reminding all that while emotions run high in custody cases, law places natural guardianship above all else.
Case Title: Pravin Nathalal Parghi S/o Late Mr. Nathalal Parghi vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2374 of 2025
