6 days ago
Bombay High Court Keeps Girl’s Interim Custody Unchanged
The Bombay High Court decided that an 11-year-old girl should not be moved immediately from the people who have raised her.
She has lived with the respondent and his wife since she was a baby.
She told the court that she wants to continue living with them.
The court said moving her suddenly could hurt her emotional well-being and disturb her daily life.
The girl’s biological parents asked for temporary custody.
They say the child was only entrusted to the couple, while the couple says she was given to them in adoption.
The District Court will study this disagreement and hear evidence.
The biological parents can still meet the girl twice a week.
The High Court asked the District Court to decide the main custody case as quickly as possible, preferably within six months.
The Bombay High Court denied the biological parents’ request for interim custody of their 11-year-old daughter.
The girl has lived with the respondent and his wife since she was about two months old and considers them her parents.
Justice NJ Jamadar cited the child’s emotional stability, established routine and stated preference to remain with the couple.
The court said the District Court must determine whether the child was legally adopted or merely entrusted to the couple after evidence is presented.
The biological parents were granted visitation every Friday and Saturday for three hours, while the main custody case was ordered to proceed promptly.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court, Justice NJ Jamadar, the 11-year-old girl, her biological parents, and the respondent and his wife.
- What
- The High Court denied the biological parents’ request for interim custody but granted them scheduled visitation.
- Where
- The case was before the Bombay High Court, involving proceedings in the District Court at Kalyan.
- When
- The order was reported on September 15, 2026; the court directed the main custody matter to preferably be decided within six months.
- Why
- The court considered the child’s welfare, emotional stability, long-standing relationship with the respondent and his wife, and stated preference to remain with them.
Biological Parents’ Position
Respondent Couple’s Position
Nature of the Child’s Placement
Biological Parents’ Position
The biological parents maintained that the child had only been entrusted to the respondent and his wife.
Respondent Couple’s Position
The respondent claimed that the child had been given to him and his wife in adoption in January 2015.
Custody Request
Biological Parents’ Position
The biological parents sought interim custody of the 11-year-old girl after the District Court declined their request.
Respondent Couple’s Position
The respondent and his wife opposed changing the arrangement under which the child had lived with them since infancy.
Child’s Immediate Welfare
Biological Parents’ Position
The biological parents sought to have the child placed in their custody, while their visitation rights were preserved by the High Court.
Respondent Couple’s Position
The High Court accepted that an abrupt move could disrupt the girl’s emotional stability and relied on her preference to remain with the couple for the interim decision.
Key facts
- Child’s age
- 11 years
- Current living arrangement
- The girl has lived with the respondent and his wife since she was approximately two months old.
- Interim custody decision
- The Bombay High Court refused to change the existing custody arrangement.
- Main legal dispute
- The parties disagree over whether the girl was legally adopted or merely entrusted to the couple.
- Visitation
- The biological parents may meet the child every Friday and Saturday for three hours.
- Trial court
- The District Court, Kalyan, will examine the custody and adoption-related claims after evidence is presented.
- Expected timeline
- The District Court was asked to decide the main custody application preferably within six months.
Quotes
Justice NJ Jamadar
Bombay High Court judge who decided the interim custody petition
“None of the observations in this order… shall influence the trial Court”
freepressjournal.in
“The child ‘Y’ has made her preference explicitly clear”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Bombay High Court Rejects Father’s Singapore Custody Transfer
High Court Says Child Preference Cannot Decide Custody
Bombay High Court Restores Mother’s Custody, Rejects Stereotypical Reasoning
Bombay High Court Says Child Welfare Outweighs Joint Parenting Rights
Bombay High Court Rejects Strict 50:50 Child Custody
NEXUS India 2026 R&D Conference Returns to Mumbai in October
Rahul Gandhi Persuades Rahul Bondre to Remain With Congress
Prachiti Nagpurkar Makes History as Asian Games MMA Referee
Possible RBI Repo Rate Hike May Raise Home Loan Costs
Vi Joins ACES India’s 25-Year Mumbai Metro Agreement