NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain<\/strong>, set aside a Family Court order which had refused interim child custody of two minor children<\/strong> to their father during their London vacation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The father had asked for custody of the children in London from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026. His case was that he had first planned a longer trip with the children, but later reduced his request to only 7 days<\/strong> because the children were already scheduled to be in London with their mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mother opposed the request. She claimed that the father may run away with the children<\/strong> and may not bring them back to India. She also argued that he had shown \u201cNil\u201d income and had not paid for the children\u2019s travel expenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court had refused the father\u2019s request mainly by saying that he could spend time with the children in India before they travelled to London. However, the High Court found this reasoning weak because the children had already lived in London from 2015 to 2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court observed that the Family Court\u2019s reasoning, that the father may spend time with the children only in India and not in London, was-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUnsupported by any material on record.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also held that the mother\u2019s fear that the father may abscond with the children from London was not convincing<\/strong>. The children\u2019s passports were with the mother<\/strong>, and the Court said it was highly unlikely that the father could get duplicate passports in London without her knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court made it clear that the mother\u2019s apprehensions were-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSpeculative and without any merit.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further said that if the father could take care of the children in India, there was no reason to say that he could not take care of them in London. The Court also held that who paid for the vacation was not the main issue while deciding interim custody.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the High Court allowed the father to have custody of both children in London from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026. <\/strong>However, he was directed to pay the full cost of the children\u2019s return air tickets from Delhi to London and back<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also added safeguards. The children\u2019s passports would remain with the mother, the father could not take them outside London, and fixed timings were given for handing over and returning custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> Role In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 19, Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Appeal against Family Court orders.<\/td> Father used it to challenge the Family Court order.<\/td><\/tr> Section 26, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Court can pass custody orders for minor children.<\/td> Father sought interim custody under this section.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Law for Hindu marriage and divorce cases.<\/td> Divorce case was pending under this law.<\/td><\/tr> Family Courts Act, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Law governing Family Courts and family disputes.<\/td> Family Court had passed the order under challenge.<\/td><\/tr> Guardianship Petition<\/strong><\/td> Case seeking permanent custody\/guardianship.<\/td> Father\u2019s earlier custody petition had been dismissed.<\/td><\/tr> HMA No. 1774\/2023<\/strong><\/td> Divorce case number before Family Court.<\/td> Interim custody issue arose in this divorce case.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n