Father Allowed Seven-Day Custody of Children in London; Delhi High Court Finds Flight-Risk Fear Unfounded
Facts
The appeal arose from matrimonial proceedings between Amritesh Jatia and Vidhi Jatia concerning the interim custody of their two minor children during the 2026 summer vacation.
The father had filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking custody of the children in London from 28 June to 5 July 2026.
The mother had already planned to travel with the children to London from 15 June to 20 July 2026. The father initially proposed taking the children to London for 15 days but later reduced his request to seven days so that it would fit within the mother’s travel schedule.
The Family Court rejected the father’s application. It held that he could spend time with the children in India before their departure and questioned why he insisted upon custody in London when a longer period was available in India.
The father challenged that order before the Delhi High Court.
The children had previously lived in London with both parents from 2015 to 2019. Since 2019, the parents and children had been residing in the same house in New Delhi, though the spouses were living separately due to matrimonial discord.
The father’s earlier guardianship petition seeking permanent custody had been dismissed in October 2025. Divorce proceedings between the parties remained pending.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court was justified in denying the father interim custody of the children in London merely because he could spend time with them in India.
- Whether the father’s financial arrangements for the trip were relevant to deciding interim custody.
- Whether the mother’s apprehension that the father might abscond with the children to another country was supported by material on record.
- Whether dismissal of the father’s earlier guardianship petition barred him from seeking temporary custody under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the father could be granted custody in London subject to safeguards protecting the children’s return.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The father argued that the Family Court permitted the mother to make unilateral decisions regarding the children’s summer vacation without consulting him.
He submitted that he had informed the mother in advance of his proposed London trip and requested the children’s passports. The mother later informed him that she had already planned a 35-day London vacation with the children.
The father contended that he modified his itinerary and reduced his proposed custody period from 15 days to seven days to accommodate the mother’s schedule.
He argued that the Family Court failed to give proper reasons for restricting his access to the children only within India.
The father submitted that the children had previously lived in London and were familiar with the city. There was therefore no basis to treat custody in London differently from custody during a domestic vacation.
He also stated that he had previously travelled with the children to places including Dubai, Goa and Ranthambore and was fully capable of caring for them.
According to him, the order effectively deprived him of meaningful time with the children during their summer vacation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The mother argued that the father’s application was not maintainable because his earlier guardianship petition seeking permanent custody had been dismissed and he had not challenged that dismissal.
She expressed serious concern that the father might take the children from London to Mauritius or another foreign country and refuse to return them to India.
The mother relied on allegations that the father:
- held two valid passports;
- had sold substantial shareholding in a company;
- had received more than ₹110 crore in offshore accounts;
- had resigned from his corporate positions;
- had declared that he had no income in India; and
- had no significant known assets remaining in the country.
She argued that these circumstances indicated a risk that he might settle abroad with the children.
The mother also submitted that her parents had paid for the children’s London travel and that the father should not be allowed to benefit from those arrangements without contributing to the cost.
She further contended that the father had never travelled alone with the children and was not capable of caring for them independently.
According to her, he had been offered the option of taking the children on a vacation within India before their departure but had chosen not to do so.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court considered the application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which empowers the court to make interim orders concerning the custody, maintenance and education of minor children during matrimonial proceedings.
The controlling consideration in such matters is the welfare and best interests of the children.
The Court held that interim custody cannot be denied on irrelevant or speculative grounds.
The fact that a parent may have an opportunity to spend time with the children in India does not, by itself, justify refusing custody during an overseas vacation.
The location of the access must be assessed in the context of:
- the children’s familiarity with the place;
- the proposed duration;
- the parent’s ability to care for them;
- the existence of genuine safety concerns; and
- whether suitable safeguards can address any apprehension.
The Court also held that the source from which a parent proposes to meet holiday expenses is not ordinarily decisive in a custody dispute.
Financial disputes between the spouses should not overshadow the children’s relationship with either parent.
Similarly, apprehensions that a parent may remove children from the jurisdiction must be supported by credible material. Speculative fears are insufficient where practical safeguards can eliminate the perceived risk.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment did not undertake an extensive discussion of separate reported precedents.
It resolved the dispute by applying the welfare principle governing interim custody under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and by closely examining the reasoning of the Family Court.
The Court followed the settled principle that custody and visitation decisions must focus on the children’s welfare rather than the competing financial or personal grievances of the parents.
It also applied the broader family-law principle that access to one parent should not be denied merely on conjectural fears when the court can impose proportionate safeguards.
The dismissal of the earlier guardianship petition was not treated as a permanent bar against temporary or vacation custody during the pending divorce proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found no material supporting the Family Court’s conclusion that the father should spend time with the children only in India.
The children had lived in London for four years and were familiar with the city. The father had also lived there with them during that period.
The source of funds for the vacation was held to be irrelevant to the basic question of whether the father should receive temporary custody.
The Court rejected the mother’s argument that the father might flee with the children to Mauritius.
The children’s passports were in the mother’s possession. The Court found it highly unlikely that the father could obtain duplicate passports in London without the mother’s knowledge and use them to remove the children to another country.
The mother’s objection was therefore regarded as speculative.
The Court also noted that the mother had no objection to the father taking custody of the children in India. If he was considered capable of looking after them in India, there was no logical basis to claim that he would be incapable of doing so in London.
At the same time, the Court addressed the mother’s financial and safety concerns through conditions.
The father was required to reimburse the entire cost of the children’s return air tickets from Delhi to London and back.
The children’s passports were directed to remain with the mother throughout the father’s custody period.
The father was also prohibited from taking the children outside London.
The Court fixed precise handover and return timings and allowed the mother to determine the location for both exchanges.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the father’s appeal and set aside the Family Court’s order.
The father was granted custody of both children in London from 9:00 a.m. on 28 June 2026 until 5:00 p.m. on 5 July 2026, subject to the following conditions:
- he must reimburse the full cost of the children’s return air tickets by 25 June 2026;
- the children’s passports must remain with the mother;
- he cannot take the children outside London;
- the mother will decide and communicate the place of handover; and
- the children must be returned to the mother at the specified time.
The Court held that the Family Court had relied on irrelevant considerations and that the mother’s flight-risk apprehension was unsupported by sufficient material.
The judgment reinforces that interim custody decisions must facilitate a meaningful parent-child relationship while using practical safeguards to protect the children’s welfare.
Case Details
Case: Amritesh Jatia v. Vidhi Jatia
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210 of 2026
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain
Date: 22 June 2026
Result: Father granted one-week custody of children in London subject to travel-cost reimbursement and passport safeguards
