Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioner-father filed an application seeking interim custody of his child on medical ground, who had to undergo an open-heart surgery, a Single Judge Bench of Rohit W. Joshi, J., after noting that the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij, rejected to take the case on board, quashed and set aside its order. The Court, thus, after considering the urgency in the present matter, allowed the application for interim custody of the child, and directed the mother to place the child in the father’s custody for the purpose of undergoing surgery.
The petitioner had filed an application to take the present case on board before the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij and had even filed a certificate dated 9-5-2025 issued by MGM’s Medical Centre & Research Institute Super Specialty Hospital, Aurangabad, certifying that the child was required to undergo surgery, scheduled for the first week of June 2025. The District Judge, despite this, rejected the application to take the case on board.
The Court opined that in a serious matter like the present one, where a child of less than two years of age was required to undergo an open-heart surgery, the District Judge did not deem it appropriate to take the case on board to consider as to whether the prayer for interim custody on medical ground should be granted or not. The Court stated that the District Judge’s conduct, to say the least, was unbecoming of any judge.
The Court was even shocked by the conduct of the respondent-mother, who opposed the prayer for interim custody, despite admitting that the child had to undergo an operation. The Court noted that the Office Staff had confirmed from the hospital concerned that the child had to undergo open-heart surgery, scheduled for the first week of June 2025.
The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 17-5-2025 passed by the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij. Further, the Court, after considering the urgency in the present matter, allowed the petitioner’s application for interim custody of the child, and had directed the mother to place the child in the father’s custody by 28-5-2025 for the purpose of undergoing surgery.
The Court further directed that the child would be in the father’s custody during hospitalization and the mother would get the child’s custody subject to further medical advice as she stayed at a distance of 200 kms from Aurangabad. The Court, after considering the child’s welfare, further directed that the father would grant continuous access to the mother while the child was in his custody.
[X v. Y, Writ Petition No. 6663 of 2025, decided on 27-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: M. P. Gandle, Advocate for the Petitioner
