In a significant cross-border child custody dispute involving parents residing in India and Singapore, the Family Court at Pune has directed a mother to restore the custody of her 10-year-old son to the father. The court held that the welfare of the child remains the overriding consideration and concluded that the father was presently in a better position to care for the child.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from an application filed by the father under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking interim custody of the minor child. The father contended that the child had been residing in Singapore since 2022 and was removed to India by the mother in March 2025.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had set aside a previous order on the interim application and directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter while focusing on specific aspects, including the child’s welfare, educational opportunities, and which parent would be better placed to look after the child.
The father argued that the child’s habitual residence was Singapore and that the child had access to better educational and developmental opportunities there. The mother opposed the plea, alleging marital discord and claiming that the child had settled well in Pune, where he was progressing academically and socially.
Court’s Observations
While examining the rival claims, the court repeatedly emphasized that allegations exchanged between the parents including accusations of misconduct, domestic disputes, and other grievances would have to be examined during the full trial and were not decisive at the interim stage.
The court observed that the central question was the welfare of the child and not the legal rights of either parent. It noted that the child had lived in Singapore for several years, was familiar with the environment there, and that the father appeared capable of providing educational, residential, and developmental support.
Referring to the existing custody order passed by the Singapore Family Justice Court, the Family Court also noted the importance of respecting judicial orders and the principle of comity between courts.
“The welfare of the child lies with the father and the father would be in a better position to take care of the child,” the court observed while recording its conclusions.
The judge further stated that the child’s welfare, future growth, and overall development required priority consideration over the continuing disputes between the parents.
Decision
Allowing the application in part, the Family Court directed the mother to immediately restore custody of the minor child to the father. However, it declined the father’s request to compel the mother to return to Singapore and also refused to issue directions regarding the child’s continued education at a particular school in Singapore.
The court clarified that the mother would continue to have video-call access to the child, with both parents expected to work out the arrangement mutually.
It also made clear that the observations contained in the order were only for the purpose of deciding the interim application and would not affect the final adjudication of the guardianship proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: G v. G
Case Number: P.D. No. 23/2025 (Exh. No. 7)
Judge: Shri Ganesh Ambadas Ghule
Decision Date: 16 May 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
