Influencer mother's erratic lifestyle no reason to deny custody of child: Court

India Today

28-04-2025

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father seeking the custody of his three-year-old child on the grounds that his mother, who is a social media influencer, holds an "erratic lifestyle".The bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and SM Modak said that the custody of the girl cannot be taken away from the mother unless there are circumstances to indicate that it would be harmful to the child.advertisementHowever, the court extended an interim relief granted to the father earlier, by which the mother is restrained from taking away the child outside the territory of India.
A division bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and SM Modak ruled that custody cannot be removed from a mother unless there is clear evidence that it would be harmful for the child to remain with her. "Ordinarily, the custody of a young girl child must remain with the mother unless compelling circumstances suggest otherwise," the court noted. It also emphasised that the child in question is only three years old.The mother, who currently resides in India, was accused by the father of lacking strong personal and professional roots in the country. The father further alleged that the woman was originally born in Pakistan, acquired Indian citizenship in 1995, and later renounced it to become a US citizen in 2007. advertisementDespite these claims, the court found no grounds to disturb the present custody arrangement.While dismissing the father's plea, the High Court extended an earlier interim order restraining the mother from taking the child outside India without the court's permission.The estranged couple married in October 2019, and their daughter was born in Mumbai in April 2022. According to the father's submissions, he had enrolled the child in a Mumbai school and prepaid fees up to 2026. Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing the father, argued that the mother had "clandestinely" taken the child to New Delhi in early 2024 under the pretext of visiting her own father and failed to return, despite booking return tickets for the child and her nurse.Following her relocation to Delhi, the mother served the father a legal notice alleging cruelty, domestic violence, financial deprivation, and mental harassment — charges the father has denied.While the mother initiated separate legal proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act in Delhi's family court, the father pursued habeas corpus in the Bombay High Court, claiming he was the child's primary caregiver due to the mother's professional commitments.Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the mother, argued that when a minor is already under the lawful custody of one parent, a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable. advertisementSalve pointed out that the Saket Family Court in Delhi had already passed an interim order in August 2024, restraining the father from forcibly removing the child from the mother's custody.The bench agreed, noting that the father's concerns regarding the mother's alleged "erratic work schedule" were disputed facts, unsuitable for determination in a habeas corpus petition. "It cannot be conclusively presumed that the mother's profession prevents her from caring for the child," the court stated.The judges also rejected arguments related to the couple's religion, observing that 'the religion of a party is only one among many considerations" when determining the welfare of a minor. "It is not a decisive or overriding factor," the court said. The court concluded that the mother was financially independent and capable of providing for the child's well-being.Must Watch