Father Refuses Mother Access to 10-Year-Old Child Despite Consent Terms; Bombay High Court Flags Parental Alienation, Directs Child’s Production in Chamber
“Attempt to Alienate Child From Mother Cannot Be Permitted”: Bombay High Court Orders Father to Produce 10-Year-Old Child in Chamber
Facts
The proceedings arose from Contempt Petition No. 403 of 2024, along with connected interim applications, before the Bombay High Court. The dispute concerned access of the mother, Vanita Rajkumaraswani, to her approximately 10-year-old child, who was in the custody of the father, Sandeep Naresh Bhatia. The parties had earlier entered into consent terms providing for the mother’s temporary custody/visitation rights.
During the hearing, the Court asked why the child should not be permitted to stay with the mother in accordance with the original consent terms. The father stated that the child was not ready to stay with her. When the mother offered a reduced arrangement—allowing the child merely to spend the entire day with her during the Ganpati festival instead of staying overnight—the father remained unwilling to cooperate.
The Court found no valid reason on the record to conclude that the child would be unwilling to stay with the mother. It observed that the child had been kept away from her for considerable time despite the original consent terms and stated that an attempt to alienate the child from the mother could not be permitted.
Issues
The principal questions before the Court were whether the father could resist the mother’s agreed access merely on the assertion that the child was unwilling to stay with her; whether the custodial parent was required to actively facilitate the child’s relationship and visitation with the other parent; and what directions were necessary when the father declined to cooperate with implementation of the agreed access arrangement.
The Court also considered whether the mother’s WhatsApp messages from 2023, relied upon by the father, could establish that the child should not presently visit the mother at her residence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The mother initially sought implementation of the access contemplated under the original consent terms. When the father expressed reluctance to permit the child to stay overnight, counsel for the mother offered a substantially reduced arrangement: the child could simply spend the entire day with her during the Ganpati festival. Even this arrangement was not accepted by the father.
Respondent’s Arguments
The father principally contended that the child himself was not ready to stay with the mother. He also relied upon certain WhatsApp chats from 2023 in which the mother had apparently stated that, until the child became stable, he could meet her outside her residence.
The father therefore sought to rely upon the child’s alleged unwillingness and the mother’s earlier communications to justify the existing access arrangement.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasised the responsibility of the custodial parent in facilitating the relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent. Where temporary custody or visitation has been granted, the custodial parent cannot merely rely upon the child’s reluctance; there is a corresponding responsibility to make the child comfortable meeting and spending time with the other parent.
The Court approached the matter from the standpoint of the child’s welfare and preservation of the parent-child relationship. It expressly observed:
“Such an attempt to alienate the child from the mother cannot be permitted.”
The Court therefore considered that genuine efforts were required to make the child comfortable with the mother rather than allowing the alleged reluctance of a 10-year-old child to effectively defeat the agreed visitation arrangement.
Precedent Analysis
No judicial precedents are cited or analysed in this particular order. The Court’s conclusions were based upon the record before it, the existing consent terms, the conduct of the parties, the welfare of the child and the responsibility of the custodial parent.
Accordingly, no precedent should be attributed to the Court beyond what appears in the order itself.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Gauri Godse found nothing on record demonstrating that the child was uncomfortable with the mother. The Court further rejected the attempt to rely upon the mother’s 2023 WhatsApp messages as establishing a permanent restriction against the child visiting her residence.
The Court went further and observed that the father’s conduct demonstrated efforts being made to alienate the child from the mother. It found no substance in the contention that the mother herself had previously stated that the child should not be brought to her residence.
Significantly, the Court gave the father an opportunity to furnish an undertaking that he would make the child comfortable so that the child could spend 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 itself be in the child’s interest. However, because of the father’s non-cooperation, it found itself left with no alternative but to direct production of the child.
The Court also clarified 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.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held, in substance, that the custodial parent has a responsibility to make a child comfortable with the other parent where temporary custody or visitation rights have been granted. The child cannot simply be kept away from the other parent by relying upon an unsupported assertion that the child is unwilling to meet or stay with them.
Finding continued non-cooperation by the father and expressing concern regarding alienation of the child from the mother, the Court directed the father to produce the 10-year-old child before the Court in Chamber on 11 September 2026 at 5:30 p.m.
Case Details
Case: Vanita Rajkumaraswani v. Sandeep Naresh Bhatia
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Contempt Petition No. 403 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 14148 of 2024 and Interim Application No. 1540 of 2025
Judge: Justice Gauri Godse
Date: 10 September 2026
Result: Father directed to produce the approximately 10-year-old child before the Court in Chamber on 11 September 2026 at 5:30 p.m.; Court reiterated the custodial parent’s responsibility to facilitate the child’s access to the mother and indicated that appropriate directions could follow if tutoring against the mother was found.
