Mumbai: In a bitter custody battle, the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of a five-year-old child but refused to impose costs on the man, as urged by his estranged wife, saying it was mindful of a father’s emotions.
“We are conscious of human emotions, the petitioner being the father of the minor child has chosen to approach this court for expeditious access. We do not find any fault in the conduct of the petitioner,” justices Sarang Kotwal and Sandesh Patil observed in their judgment dated April 24.
The man’s estranged wife, in whose custody their child currently is, had urged the court to levy “heavy costs” on the man for filing the habeas corpus petition even while their custody petition was pending before the family court in Bandra.
Both the man and woman gave the court very different accounts of how the child’s mother obtained his custody. While the man alleged that his separated wife illegally entered his house and whisked the child away with the help of her family members, the woman said she lawfully entered her matrimonial home on May 2, 2025 and took away her child who was sick at the time.
The couple, in their thirties, got married in 2017 while their son was born in 2021. However, in March 2025, their relationship soured and, in April 2025, the woman left their marital home in the western suburbs to move in with her parents who lived further north in the city.
The man alleged that his estranged wife and her mother “surreptitiously entered” his house on May 2, 2025 and “forcefully” took the child away without his knowledge or consent. He contended that even though a custody petition was pending in the family court, he had filed the habeas corpus petition to “remedy an immediate illegality and to restore status-quo ante (previously existing state of affairs)”.
The child’s mother, however, said she had entered the house using a fingerprint lock and she was the child’s “natural guardian”. She said she did not “barge in” as alleged. She told the court that her husband did not have exclusive custody of the child and she had not denied him access to the child. She also said that while a custody petition was filed in the family court in July 2025, her husband still filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court in January.
“The pleadings of the parties are totally divergent on this view. This is a case of oath against oath,” the judges observed. The family court was expected to hear the interim application for the child’s custody on Tuesday, the judges said.
“We do not find it appropriate to entertain the present petition,” they noted, and added that the child would remain in his mother’s custody until the family court took a decision.
