While taking a humane approach, the Gujarat High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mansiben Wo Dharmendrabhai Keshavjibhai Ghetiya Do Bhagvanjibhai Ganeshbhai Bhimani vs Keshavjibhai Damjibhai Ghetiya in R/Special Civil Application No. 15369 of 2025 that was pronounced just recently on 23.03.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that forcing a toddler to spend six hours on court premises every Thursday under the guise of access to grandparents is “uncalled for and unjust”. It must be noted that the Gujarat High Court made the key observation while it allowed a plea that had been filed by the mother of a two-and-a-half-year-old child challenging a Family Court order.
It must be borne in mind that the Family Court order had required her to bring the child to court every Thursday from 11 am to 5 pm to facilitate visitation with the paternal grandfather in a child custody dispute. We need to note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JC Doshi set aside the order terming it as “unfathomable”. The Bench pointed out that a minor aged barely two-and-a-half years had been the subject of a custody dispute and had become victim of an inhuman approach.
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent, persuasive and powerful judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JC Doshi of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-mother has prayed for the following reliefs:
- YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or order and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. I/C Judge, Family Court, Dhrol-Jodia below Ex. 19 in Civil Misc. Application No. (DC) 03 of 2025, in the interest of justice;
- YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of impugned order dtd. 11.09.2025 passed below Ex.19 in Civil Misc. Application No. (DC) 03 of 2025, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application;
- YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as are deemed fit, in the interest of justice;
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that:
The order passed below Exh.19 has been passed by the learned Family Court, Jodiya – Dhrol in CMA filed by the respondent - original petitioner herein u/s 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking permanent custody of minor son “A” (identity of the minor is hidden) from the petitioner -mother – mother. original petitioner is grandfather of the minor. During the pendency of the petition, the learned Family Court, without having any prayer below Exh.19, passed the following order:-
“1. Opponent is directed to remain present with minor at Family Court, Dhrol, on each working Thursday to have access to applicants to minor in the court premises itself from 11.00 a.m. - 05.00 p.m. till the disposal of the present application on merits.
2. During the span of access, opponent and applicants have to sit together and opponent will not act in any manner prejudice to the interest of the applicants. Opponent will not remain present with her second husband during such meeting.
3. Both the parties will take care of food for minor in the court premises. Applicants can give gifts, clothes and toys to the minor and opponent will accept it and permit minor to use it and will cooperate in such access.””
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the factual background of this leading case states in para 5 that:
Learned advocate for the petitioner - mother would submit that Exh.19 filed before the learned trial Court is just a pursis, whereby the respondent - original petitioner has made some declaration only and no relief was claimed therein, yet the learned Family Court passed order impugned in this petition and directed the petitioner - mother to remain present on every working Thursday in the Court along with the minor, who is aged two and half years, between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and granted access to the respondent -original petitioner and further restrained the second husband of the petitioner - mother from remaining present there.
He would further submit that second husband of the petitioner -mother is not party to the proceedings, and yet, the learned Family Court in excess of its jurisdiction, passed the impugned order against non—party to the proceedings, which itself shows the so called merits of the impugned order. He would further submit that consequent to passing of order below Exh.19, the learned Family Court also passed common order below Exhs.28, 29 and 30, whereby the petitioner-mother was directed to remain present before the Cluster Family Court, Dhrol – Jodia on each working.
Thursdays except holiday and further, the petitioner - mother was directed to celebrate birthday of the minor in the Court premises. He would further submit that the learned Family is expected to take approach in welfare of a child, however, the learned Family Court has taken otherway round approach, which is established from the fact that the minor, who is not leaving an inch from the lap of the petitioner mother, is directed to keep in temporary custody between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Therefore, he would further submit that the learned Family Court has taken complete illogical approach.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that:
Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having considered the impugned order, it is utter surprise to this Court that the respondent - original petitioner herein though did not ask for any relief below Exh.19, which is just a pursis. The learned Family Court passed order below Exh.19 and granted visitation right plus temporary custody between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on each working Thursday. Noticeably, Exh.19 is pursis, whereby the respondent-original petitioner herein declared some facts, which is a unilateral declaration on the part of the respondent – original petitioner. Below pursis, the learned Family Court at the maximum can pass order of “Recorded” not beyond that.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 8 that:
What further could be noticed from the impugned order that the minor is barely two and half years old. The minor, when was present before the Court, he was constantly crying and was intended to go outside with his mother and stepfather, which infers that the minor was not ready to leave an inch from the lap of his mother i.e. the petitioner-mother. The learned Family Court noted that the petitioner-mother is not leaving the minor from her lap for a single moment and such conduct is creating obstacle in obtaining Children Assessment Report. According to this Court, the finding of the learned Family Court is completely uncalled for and insensitive.”
Notably, the Bench observes briefly in para 9 that:
In custody matter family court is required to adopt sensitive, humane and child centric approach. The Family Court must construe that disputes over custody are not merely legal contests between the fighting party, but the issue is directly affecting the emotional, psychological, and developmental welfare of the child. The expression “sensitive approach” implies that the court must act as parens patriae—a guardian of the child’s best interests—rather than strictly adjudicating adversarial claims. Proceedings should be conducted in a manner that minimizes trauma, avoids hostility, and prioritizes the child’s welfare above the legal rights of the fighting litigants.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently emphasized that custody matters require empathy and flexibility. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, 2009(11) SCC 42, the Hon’ble Apex Court defined the approach and duties of Court in a custody matters and expect that mature and clear approach has to be taken up when conflicting demands are made by the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that object and purpose of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is not a mere physical custody of the minor, but protection of the right of ward’s health and welfare.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
Thus, a “sensitive approach” in custody matters entails:
- Prioritizing the best interests and welfare of the child above parental rights;
- Conducting proceedings in a non-adversarial and child-friendly manner;
- Considering emotional, psychological, and developmental factors and
- Avoiding mechanical or technical application of law.
The Family Court is expected to adopt a sensitive, humane, and child-centric approach in a child custody matter keeping in mind that such proceedings concern the welfare and future of a minor rather than the legal victory of fighting litigants. The court acts in the capacity of parens patriae and must exercise discretion with empathy, patience, and sensitivity to the emotional needs of the child. The Family Court must place the child’s physical, emotional, moral, educational, and psychological welfare above the legal rights or claims of the fighting litigants. The Court should evaluate age and gender of the child, emotional bonding with each parent, stability of home environment, educational and developmental needs and wishes of the child, if of sufficient maturity.”
Equally significant and most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench then propounds in para 14 holding that:
Applying the settled legal position of law, at the end of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds that the view and approach of the learned Family Court is unfathomable. Barely two and half years aged minor has become the subject matter in a custody dispute and whereby, has become victim of inhuman approach.
The petitioner - mother who has just contracted second marriage is forced to visit the court along with the minor having age of two and half years old on every Thursday to have access to the respondent – original petitioner and that too at an interim stage. Such order forcing the petitioner mother and the minor to visit court premises on every Thursday under the guise of access to grandparents is uncalled for and unjust. A lot more can be said, but this Court restrained itself from observing further.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 15 noting that:
It is also to be noted that some other orders passed in other applications are found to be not befitting to the principle of best interest and welfare of a child. Vide order below Exh.15, firstly the learned Family Court directed the minor to remain present in the first death anniversary of his father in Diamond Factory at Dhrol, then again vide order below Exh.18, which was passed on an application for adjournment, the Court called for the report from the Medical Officer of Astha Hospital about medical condition of the minor though no one has prayed or asked for, thereby, the learned Family court has doubted the reason stated by the petitioner mother in seeking time to file reply.
It is noticeable that some harsh order was passed below Exhs.28, 29 and 30, whereby application filed by the petitioner - mother at Exh.28 was rejected and she was forced to remain present on every Thursday in Court premises with the minor except the date where Thursday is holiday. Further, she was to remain present between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the court premises. This kind of harsh and obdurate approach of the court is unacceptable. All that could be noticed that these kind of orders are passed at interim stage, without reading the evidence. The point of view of the learned Family court may not be biased, but at the same time, no less than parti pris. Under the circumstances, present petition deserves consideration.”
On a parting note, the Bench while citing relevant case law observes in para 16 that:
Before parting with the order, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rosy Jacob V/s. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, 1973 1 SCC 840 being relevant, reads as under:-
“14. ........The children are not mere chattels: nor are they mere play-things for their parents. Absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their children has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful members of the society and the guardian court in case of a dispute between the mother and the father is expected to strike a just and proper balance between the requirements of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents over them. ....””
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 17 that, “With the above observations and findings, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. I/C Judge, Family Court, Dhrol-Jodia below Ex. 19 in Civil Misc. Application No. (DC) 03 of 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
