No, not automatically. In KAG v. AAG (2026:BHC-AS:35988-DB), decided in September 2026, the Bombay High Court set aside a Pune Family Court order that had moved a child’s interim custody to his father in Singapore, largely on the strength of a Singapore court’s order. Indian courts must independently assess the child’s welfare; a foreign order is a relevant factor, not a direction to be obeyed. The High Court also criticised the Family Court for basing custody on stereotypes about a ‘pious wife’ and a ‘bahu’.
Pune has a large number of families who have worked in Singapore, the Gulf, the US or Europe. When a marriage breaks down abroad, one parent often returns to Pune with the child, and the other parent goes to a court in the country they lived in. Within months there are two courts, two orders and a child in the middle. This judgment is now the clearest local guidance on how that is handled.
The facts
The child spent his early years in Pune before the family moved to Singapore. After the marriage broke down, the mother returned to Pune with him, and he stayed in her care, went to school here and grew close to his maternal grandparents. The father filed under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in Pune. Meanwhile a Singapore Family Justice Court granted him custody.
The High Court had already sent the matter back once, telling the Family Court to stop focusing on the couple’s quarrel and to decide which parent was better placed to care for the child. On remand, the Family Court relied on the Singapore order, the father’s finances, the facilities in Singapore and the mother’s conduct as a wife, and directed the child to be handed to the father.
What the High Court held
- Interim custody under Section 12 is a temporary arrangement for the child’s protection. It cannot be used to effectively decide permanent custody.
- Changing an existing custody arrangement needs sufficient and compelling reasons. Stability in the child’s routine is itself a weighty factor.
- A foreign custody order and the principle of comity of courts do not displace the Indian court’s duty to look at the child’s welfare first, following Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo.
- Financial capacity is not decisive. A bigger house and a Cambridge-curriculum school abroad do not by themselves show the child is better off.
- Allegations that still need to be proved at trial, including untested WhatsApp messages, cannot be used to make adverse findings at the interim stage.
- Remarks about a wife’s ‘pious duties’, her role as ‘bahu’, or her unwillingness to reconcile concern the marriage, not the child, and have no place in a custody order.
The Court let the mother keep custody, gave the father physical access once every three months plus holidays by arrangement, and weekly video calls. The Family Court was directed to decide the main guardianship case quickly.
What courts actually look at
| Weighs heavily | Weighs little or nothing |
|---|---|
| Who has been the child’s day-to-day caregiver | Which parent earns more |
| The child’s school, friends and extended family in Pune | The quality of facilities abroad, by itself |
| Any evidence of neglect, danger or harm | Who was ‘at fault’ in the marriage |
| The child’s own wishes, if old enough to express them | Whether the mother is willing to reconcile |
| Each parent’s willingness to allow the other access | Unproved allegations and untested electronic messages |
Practical steps if this is your situation
- If you are in Pune with the child, file in the Family Court, Shivajinagar early. Being the first to bring the child’s welfare before an Indian court matters.
- Keep school records, medical records, and evidence of the child’s routine and relationships in Pune.
- Offer and honour reasonable video and physical access to the other parent. Courts notice who facilitates and who obstructs.
- If you are the parent abroad, engage in the Indian proceedings rather than relying only on the foreign order. Appear by video conference where permitted.
- Avoid making the custody case a trial of the marriage. As this judgment shows, the court is told to ignore it, and parties who lean on it lose credibility.
The bottom line
For a child living in Pune, the Pune court decides custody on the child’s welfare, and a foreign order is one input into that. The parent who presents a calm, evidence-based plan for the child, and leaves the marriage out of it, is the parent the court is most likely to trust.