Child Cannot Be Kept Away From Mother”: Bombay High Court Orders Father to Produce 10-Year-Old Child in Chamber After Refusing Even One-Day Ganpati Access to Mother
Bombay High Court: “Child Cannot Be Kept Away From Mother”; Orders Father to Produce 10-Year-Old Child in Chamber After Refusing Even One-Day Ganpati Access
Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court directed the respondent-father, who is the custodial parent, to produce the approximately 10-year-old child before the Court in chamber after recording his continued reluctance to facilitate the child’s access to the mother.
Justice Gauri Godse observed that the child had been kept away from the mother for a considerable period and was not being permitted to remain with her in accordance with the original consent terms. The Court held that an attempt to alienate the child from the mother could not be permitted and emphasised that it was the duty of the custodial parent to make the child comfortable enough to meet and spend time with the non-custodial parent.
The Court further warned that if, upon interacting with the child, it found that the child had been tutored against the mother, appropriate directions could be passed in the contempt proceedings.
Facts
The matter arose from a contempt petition pending before the Bombay High Court concerning implementation of consent terms governing access and visitation between the mother and the minor child.
The respondent-father appeared before the Court pursuant to an earlier order dated 2 September 2026. He informed the Court that although he had received a copy of the contempt petition and relevant orders, the contempt notice itself had not yet been formally served. The Registry’s service report was awaited. The Court therefore directed that a fresh contempt notice be prepared in terms of its earlier order dated 13 August 2026. Counsel for the respondent stated that he would collect the notice from the Registry and hand it over to the respondent so that a reply could be filed.
During the hearing, the Court questioned why the child should not be permitted to stay with the mother in accordance with the original consent terms. The father expressed reluctance and stated that the child was not willing to stay with the mother.
In response, the mother, who was present in Court, offered a reduced arrangement. She stated that if the father was not willing to permit an overnight stay, the child could at least spend the entire day with her during the Ganpati festival. Even this proposal was not accepted by the father.
The father continued to maintain that the child was not ready to stay with the mother. The Court, however, found no valid material on record demonstrating that the child was unwilling or uncomfortable with her.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether the custodial parent could refuse to facilitate access between the child and the mother by relying upon the alleged unwillingness of the child.
A related issue was whether old WhatsApp communications in which the mother had previously suggested that the child meet her outside her residence could justify continued denial of access at her home.
The Court was also required to consider whether the father’s continued unwillingness to cooperate justified requiring the minor child to personally appear before the Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
On behalf of the mother, it was submitted that the child should be permitted to spend time with her in accordance with the original consent terms.
When it became apparent that the father was unwilling to allow the child to stay overnight with the mother, she substantially reduced her request and stated that the child could simply spend the whole day with her during the Ganpati festival.
Despite this concession, the father remained unwilling to cooperate with the proposed arrangement.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent-father contended that the child himself was not ready or willing to stay with the mother.
His counsel also relied upon certain WhatsApp conversations annexed to the reply. According to the father, these chats demonstrated that the mother herself had previously stated that the child should meet her outside her residence until he became stable.
The Court noted, however, that these WhatsApp conversations were from 2023.
Analysis of the Law
The Court approached the controversy primarily from the perspective of the welfare of the child and the obligations of a custodial parent in facilitating the child’s relationship with the other parent.
The Court emphasised that where visitation or temporary custody rights have already been recognised, the custodial parent cannot remain passive or rely merely upon the alleged reluctance of the child. The custodial parent carries an affirmative duty to make the child comfortable enough to interact with the other parent.
The Court observed that the child was approximately 10 years old and that, even assuming the child was presently reluctant to remain with the mother, a genuine attempt was required to make the child comfortable with her.
The Court expressly recorded that an attempt to alienate a child from the other parent cannot be permitted.
Precedent Analysis
The order does not refer to or analyse any reported judgments or external precedents.
The Court’s conclusions were based upon the existing consent terms, the conduct of the parties, the material placed before it and the welfare considerations arising from the parent-child relationship.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found no valid reason on record to conclude that the child would not be agreeable to remaining with the mother as contemplated by the consent terms.
It observed that the child had already been kept away from the mother for a considerable period and that the father had failed to facilitate meaningful access. According to the Court, such conduct indicated an attempt to alienate the child from the mother.
The Court also rejected the father’s reliance upon the 2023 WhatsApp chats. It noted that the parties had themselves agreed in the consent terms that the convenience of the child would be taken into consideration while exercising access. Earlier concerns expressed by the mother could therefore not be interpreted as a permanent acknowledgment that the child should never visit her residence.
The Court further recorded that there was nothing on record to establish that the child was actually uncomfortable with the mother.
The Court gave the father an opportunity to file an undertaking stating that he would make the child comfortable and facilitate the child spending the entire day with the mother. The father declined to furnish such an undertaking.
The Court observed that requiring a child to attend Court could never ordinarily be considered in the child’s interest. However, because of the father’s continued non-cooperation, the Court found that it had no alternative but to call the child before it.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court directed the respondent-father to produce the minor child before the Court in chamber on 11 September 2026 at 5:30 p.m.
The Court made it clear that, as the custodial parent, the father was responsible for making the child comfortable enough to interact with the mother.
Significantly, the Court also cautioned that if it found that the child had been tutored against the mother, appropriate directions could be issued in the contempt petition.
Implications
The order reinforces that custody does not confer an unfettered right upon one parent to control or obstruct the child’s relationship with the other parent.
Where visitation or temporary custody rights have been recognised, the custodial parent is expected to actively facilitate the relationship rather than merely cite the child’s alleged reluctance as a ground to deny access.
The order also demonstrates that courts may closely scrutinise allegations of parental alienation and may directly interact with a child where they believe that continued parental non-cooperation is frustrating existing visitation arrangements.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that bringing a child to court is not ordinarily desirable and treated such a course as a consequence of the custodial parent’s failure to cooperate.
FAQs
- Can a custodial parent refuse visitation merely because the child says he does not want to meet the other parent?
Not automatically. The Court held that the custodial parent has a responsibility to make the child comfortable enough to meet the other parent where visitation or temporary custody rights have already been granted.
- What did the Bombay High Court say about parental alienation?
The Court observed that keeping the child away from the mother and making no genuine effort to facilitate access could amount to an attempt to alienate the child from her, which could not be permitted.
- Why did the Court direct the child to be produced before it?
The father remained unwilling to facilitate even one full day of access during the Ganpati festival and also declined to give an undertaking that he would make the child comfortable with the mother. The Court therefore concluded that it had no option but to interact with the child personally.
Case Details
Case: Vanita Rajkumaraswani v. Sandeep Naresh Bhatia
Court: Bombay High Court
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Contempt Petition No. 403 of 2024 with Interim Applications
Judge: Justice Gauri Godse
Date: 10 September 2026
Result: Father directed to produce the minor child before the Court in chamber; Court warned that appropriate directions may follow if the child is found tutored against the mother.
