Key Points:

A FAMILY COURT IN PUNE recently ordered that the interim custody of a 10-year-old boy be granted to his father. The court said it was keeping the child's welfare in mind and observed that he would be better nurtured in the custody of his father. The court gave the reasoning that the mother had repeatedly prevented the father from meeting their son and had continued to expose the child to negative remarks about him, which, according to the court, could damage the father-son relationship.

This custody dispute concerns a couple who got married in 2012 and moved to Singapore with their son in 2022. The child, who was born in 2016, was enrolled in an international school while the father worked in Singapore. In 2025, while the father was on a business trip, the mother allegedly brought the child back to Pune without informing him and admitted him to a local school.

The father then approached courts in both Singapore and India seeking custody of the child. In 2025, the Singapore Family Justice Court passed an order granting custody to the father and directed the mother to return the child. However, she did not comply with the order and remained in Pune. The father later filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act before the Pune Family Court.

See also: Panic buying of petrol/diesel in Kashmir triggers chaos; Indian Oil Corp says no fuel shortage

Court Says Mother Is Alienating Father and Son

The judge hearing the case, Family Court Judge Ganesh Ghule, observed that the mother had repeatedly denied the father access to the child despite court orders. The court also said that the environment in the mother's house was not good. It further observed that the child had allegedly written lyrics about death, which indicated emotional distress.

"We cannot ignore that, a child of 10 Yrs old allegedly wrote a lyric about the death," the court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

Judge Ghule also observed that the child was being influenced against his father and cautioned that if such remarks continued, the father–son relationship could be permanently damaged. The court further observed that the mother was using the child as a pawn in the marital dispute and warned that her actions could have long-term consequences on the child's emotional well-being.

Judge Ghule Speaks About Duties of Wife and Mother

While delivering the order, Judge Ghule also spoke about the duties of a wife and mother while discussing the marital relationship. He said that the mother had failed to perform what he described as her "pious duties" towards her husband.

“Pious duties of a wife towards her husband, nurturing the home, maintaining the respect, providing emotional support in traditional and religious perspectives, managing the household diligently, communicating with kindness, creating welcoming environment – these appears to be foreign terms to her,” the judge said.

The court also observed that the mother had initiated multiple litigations and, in the process, had forgotten that the petitioner was the father of the child. While she expected financial support from him, there were no signs that she was willing to patch up or repair the marital relationship and instead treated him with hostility.

"Keeping the marriage vows, caring for her husband physically and emotionally, praying for him, and seeking his good in all things is expectation however she treated him as if he and his family is her seven generation enemy thus, in the company of such a women, the future of the Child is not safe," the court added. The court also remarked that she appeared more interested in legal battles than in preserving the family.

See also: Three Sopore Men Held While Crossing LoC into PoK; Muzaffarabad Man Claims He Entered Kashmir to Meet Girlfriend

Singapore Court Order on The Custody case Must Be Respected

The court, while delivering its order, also said, “This is a fit case wherein we need to break unwritten assumption that a mother is the only ‘natural’ caregiver, while the father is merely the ‘provider’." The court attached significance to the custody order passed by the Singapore Family Justice Court, noting that the mother had neither challenged nor complied with it.

Judge Ghule observed that she had evaded the judicial order passed by the Singapore court and said that, "court orders should not become mere paper orders." He further said that despite the orders, she had forgotten that the child belonged to both parents. "Once judicial order is passed who ever s/he may be, cannot refuse to obey it,” the court said.

The mother had accused the father of domestic violence, emotional abuse, and maintaining an extramarital relationship with a maid. However, the judge said that these allegations did not automatically explain why the father was unfit to be a parent 

The court noted that the father has a stable income, a three-bedroom apartment in Singapore, access to quality education for the child, and support from the paternal grandmother and a domestic helper. These factors, the court said, showed that he was capable of taking care of his son.

(Edited by: Harsh Pandey)

Suggested Reading: