Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on a Family Court judge for refusing to take up an urgent application for interim custody of a one-year-old child who requires open heart surgery. The court described the judge’s conduct as “unbecoming” and also slammed the mother for opposing custody despite admitting the child needs surgery.
The petitioner-father had moved the Family Court at Kaij, seeking interim custody of his child, born on September 21, 2023, for the purpose of undergoing a critical medical procedure. The surgery is scheduled for the first week of June 2025 at MGM’s Medical Centre & Research Institute Super Specialty Hospital, Aurangabad.
Despite submitting a medical certificate dated May 9, 2025, from the hospital confirming the urgency of the procedure, District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge at Kaij, Mr. Sudhir B. Bhajipale, rejected the father’s plea to take the case on board during the summer vacation.
In his brief order, the judge had stated: “The non applicant is the mother of the child. In such circumstances, no urgent ground to decide the application of custody in summer vacation.”
Expressing strong displeasure, the High Court observed: “It appears that in a serious matter like this, where a child of less than two years of age is required to undergo open heart surgery, the learned Judge has not deemed it appropriate to take the case on board… The conduct of the learned judge, to say the least, is unbecoming of any judge.”
The High Court also noted that the respondent-mother opposed the father’s request for interim custody despite admitting that the child needed surgery. The court called her stance “equally shocking.”
The bench confirmed the surgery schedule directly with the concerned hospital and, taking note of the urgency, quashed and set aside the family court’s order dated May 17, 2025.
Allowing the father’s plea, the High Court directed: “The respondent-mother is directed to place the child in custody of the father in Aurangabad tomorrow i.e. on May 28, 2025, for the purpose of undergoing surgery.” It further clarified that the child would remain in the father’s custody during hospitalization, while the mother would regain custody afterwards, subject to medical advice.
The court also ensured that the mother be given full access during the child’s stay with the father: “Having regard to the welfare of the child, it is directed that the father will grant continuous access to the mother while the child is in his custody.”
The petitioner has been directed to file an affidavit post-surgery with supporting documents to confirm that the operation was carried out as claimed.
