A family court in Pune recently granted interim custody of a 10-year-old boy to his father, observing that the wife did not appear to respect her husband, maintain the household or nurture the home.

Judge Ganesh Ghule said that such values appeared to be “foreign terms” to her and thus held that the child’s future was not safe in her custody.

“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 Court said.

It further observed that the mother treated the father “as if he and his family is her seven generation enemy”.

“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,” it added.

The custody dispute concerns a child who lived in Pune until 2022. Thereafter, the child and his parents moved to Singapore, where they resided until March 2025, when the mother returned to India with the child.

The father subsequently approached the family court under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the child. He alleged that the child had been wrongfully removed from Singapore while he was away on a business trip and argued that the child should be returned to Singapore, where he had been studying and residing for nearly 3 years.

The mother opposed the plea and alleged domestic violence, emotional abuse and infidelity on the part of the father. She argued that the child was settled in Pune, performing well in school and wished to remain with her.

After examining the material on record, the Court concluded that the child was being influenced against his father and that continued exposure to negative remarks about him could permanently damage their relationship.

The judge further warned that the child could be used as a tool against the father if custody remained with the mother.

The Court also said that the mother appeared more interested in pursuing legal battles than repairing the marital relationship. It added that while the mother expected financial support from her husband, she had not shown any willingness to reconcile and instead treated him as a hostile adversary.

The judge also referred to material suggesting that the child was suffering from emotional distress. It noted that the boy had allegedly written lyrics concerning death.

“We cannot ignore that, a child of 10 Yrs old allegedly wrote a lyric about the death,” it said.

The Court thus said that the circumstances disclosed an urgent need to remove the child from the mother’s custody. It also noted that the mother had repeatedly obstructed access between the father and child in an attempt to alienate the child from his father.

Even though it acknowledged that the child was loved in his maternal home, it held that the father would be better placed to safeguard the child’s interests and future.

The judge noted that the father holds a senior leadership position in Singapore, has stable income, suitable housing, access to international schooling and family support.

“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 said.

The Court also rejected the argument that allegations regarding the father’s character or his alleged relationship with the family’s maid automatically disqualified him from custody.

The Court attached significance to the Singapore custody proceedings, observing that the Singapore Family Justice Court had already directed that custody be restored to the father.

Since that order remained unchallenged, the Court held that the principle of comity of courts was required to be respected.