The Bombay High Court at Goa recently emphasised the importance of respecting the growing autonomy of adolescent children who may be embroiled in parental custody battles..In the April 9 order, the Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta refused a mother’s plea to retrieve her 15-year-old son from the custody of his father in Goa, after the boy expressed his wish to stay back with his father. “Though [the boy] is below 18 and therefore in a technical sense a child, he is away from maturity by two years, but we find that he has made a decision for himself and we must express that he is not at the age to feel bound by the decision taken for him by others, including the Court itself," the Court said. .The mother had filed a habeas corpus petition in 2025 after her 15-year-old son, who had lived with her in Canada for around five years, did not return from a visit to India with his father. The parents, both Indian citizens, had divorced by mutual consent in 2019, with a Goa court granting the mother primary custody and the father visitation rights of up to 56 days annually. .In March 2025, during a holiday visit, the father allegedly took the child back to India without the mother's consent, prompting allegations of abduction, forgery to get a new passport, and manipulation. The mother claimed that all of this violated court-ordered custody terms and disrupted the child’s academic life in Ontario, where he was excelling.She accused the father of alienating the child and argued that virtual schooling would compromise his education.The father countered that the boy had chosen to stay with him and was unwilling to return, adding that he had enrolled him in Ontario Virtual School, which offered an equivalent diploma. He also asserted that his custody was not unlawful in the absence of any harm to the child..The Court, after personally interacting with the 15-year-old, noted the seriousness and clarity with which the boy expressed his views. “We were repeatedly told by [the boy] that he had accompanied his father on his own will and he shall not be forced to return back to Canada and be in the company of the mother ... We could hear a voice of a young man, who is developing in an adult. He is at an age which is inherently infused with disturbance and psychological confusion ... he is full of rage and we do not intend to put him in a situation, which would cause him any physical, emotional or psychological harm and it would not be definitely in his interest," it observed..While denying the mother's request to compel the boy's return to Canada, the Court emphasized on the welfare of child. It upheld her legal custody over him but directed her to cooperate in facilitating the boy's education through online schooling. The father was directed to ensure regular meetings with the mother to rebuild their relationship.“We expect the petitioner [mother] to respect his decision,” the Court said. It stressed that the welfare of the child, particularly an adolescent, must include his right to make 'his choice.'.Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju with advocate Caroline Collasso appeared for the petitioner-motherSenior Advocate AA Agni with advocates J Shaikh and Harihar appeared for the father.Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai appeared for the State of Goa.
The Bombay High Court at Goa recently emphasised the importance of respecting the growing autonomy of adolescent children who may be embroiled in parental custody battles..In the April 9 order, the Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta refused a mother’s plea to retrieve her 15-year-old son from the custody of his father in Goa, after the boy expressed his wish to stay back with his father. “Though [the boy] is below 18 and therefore in a technical sense a child, he is away from maturity by two years, but we find that he has made a decision for himself and we must express that he is not at the age to feel bound by the decision taken for him by others, including the Court itself," the Court said. .The mother had filed a habeas corpus petition in 2025 after her 15-year-old son, who had lived with her in Canada for around five years, did not return from a visit to India with his father. The parents, both Indian citizens, had divorced by mutual consent in 2019, with a Goa court granting the mother primary custody and the father visitation rights of up to 56 days annually. .In March 2025, during a holiday visit, the father allegedly took the child back to India without the mother's consent, prompting allegations of abduction, forgery to get a new passport, and manipulation. The mother claimed that all of this violated court-ordered custody terms and disrupted the child’s academic life in Ontario, where he was excelling.She accused the father of alienating the child and argued that virtual schooling would compromise his education.The father countered that the boy had chosen to stay with him and was unwilling to return, adding that he had enrolled him in Ontario Virtual School, which offered an equivalent diploma. He also asserted that his custody was not unlawful in the absence of any harm to the child..The Court, after personally interacting with the 15-year-old, noted the seriousness and clarity with which the boy expressed his views. “We were repeatedly told by [the boy] that he had accompanied his father on his own will and he shall not be forced to return back to Canada and be in the company of the mother ... We could hear a voice of a young man, who is developing in an adult. He is at an age which is inherently infused with disturbance and psychological confusion ... he is full of rage and we do not intend to put him in a situation, which would cause him any physical, emotional or psychological harm and it would not be definitely in his interest," it observed..While denying the mother's request to compel the boy's return to Canada, the Court emphasized on the welfare of child. It upheld her legal custody over him but directed her to cooperate in facilitating the boy's education through online schooling. The father was directed to ensure regular meetings with the mother to rebuild their relationship.“We expect the petitioner [mother] to respect his decision,” the Court said. It stressed that the welfare of the child, particularly an adolescent, must include his right to make 'his choice.'.Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju with advocate Caroline Collasso appeared for the petitioner-motherSenior Advocate AA Agni with advocates J Shaikh and Harihar appeared for the father.Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai appeared for the State of Goa.
