The Bombay high court recently rejected the plea of a 41-year-old father for the custody of his 3-year-old daughter over his ‘anger issues’. The bench, consisting of justice Revati Mohite Dere and justice Gauri Godse, was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father, a UK citizen, for the custody of his daughter, a US citizen, who is currently with her mother, an Indian citizen, in Mumbai.

The court took into consideration the past conduct of the father, wherein he had been allegedly abusive towards the child’s mother on multiple occasions before rejecting the plea. “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 order said.

The court said that the welfare of the child is of primary importance, and it is in the best interest of the daughter to live with their mother in India while rejecting the petition.

According to the petition, the parents got married in December 2018 in New York, United States of America. Soon after, they had a child in March 2020. However, disputes flared up between them soon after the child’s birth, which led to them signing a marriage reconciliation agreement in 2021.

Shortly after, in 2022, they made a joint decision to move to Singapore and settle there permanently. They even leased a property and enrolled the child in an international preschool in Singapore. However, in November 2022, while the father was away in the UK, the mother moved back to India with the child and refused to go back.

The father then approached the Singapore court for custody and obtained a court order for joint custody of the child. To enforce the order, he approached the Bombay HC.

However, the mother opposed the plea, citing instances of violent and abusive behaviour even in Singapore. She further submitted that she returned to India for the child’s safety based on the advice of Singapore police.

In his petition, the father claimed that the mother illegally brought her to India from Singapore, where they were staying as a family. As the child is familiar with her Singapore residence, he should be allowed to take her back, he said. The court, however, refused to accept that Singapore is a familiar place for the child, as she has spent only seven months, which is a very short period to develop any roots considering the age of the child. It also underlined the need for a mother’s presence for a child this young in her life. “The child is a girl of a tender age of three and a half years and thus requires the care and affection of her mother,” the court noted.

The Court noted that the couple had a history of domestic violence, with a signed agreement outlining the husband’s responsibility for therapy, legal fees, and supervised child access. Despite this agreement, the wife filed complaints about his behaviour in both Singapore and India

The court, after considering the past actions of the father, found the actions of the mother justified. “The respondent is justified in coming to India along with the child, and it cannot be said that she has illegally detained the child in India,” the court said. It, however, refused to go into the merits of the case as custody proceedings are pending before both courts in India and Singapore.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Case Title: R v State of Maharashtra (2023:BHC-AS:36261-DB)