Introduction:

In the case titled SGT vs NST (Writ Petition 6663 of 2025), the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Rohit Joshi, delivered a strongly worded order on May 27, 2025, in response to a petition filed by a father seeking interim custody of his minor son for an urgent medical reason. The petitioner, SGT, moved the Bombay High Court after the Family Court at Kaij, Beed district, refused to hear his urgent plea for interim medical custody of his son, born on September 21, 2023. The minor child was scheduled to undergo a critical open-heart surgery in the first week of June 2025 at MGM’s Medical Centre & Research Institute Super Speciality Hospital, Aurangabad. The child, however, was in the custody of the mother, NST, who lived nearly 200 kilometres away in Kaij. The petition challenged the Family Court’s May 17 order that postponed the matter until after summer vacations, ignoring the urgent medical needs of the child.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner argued that the urgency of the matter warranted immediate intervention by the Family Court, as the minor child needed to be near the hospital in Aurangabad for the scheduled open-heart surgery. The father emphasised that the delay could risk the child’s life and that temporary custody was essential solely for the period of hospitalisation. He pointed out the impracticality of the mother travelling with the child over a distance of 200 km for the procedure and subsequent medical attention. He further contended that the mother’s opposition to the request for urgent hearing and to the interim custody itself, despite admitting the necessity of the operation, was both unreasonable and harmful to the welfare of the child. On the other hand, the respondent mother, NST, not only opposed the interim custody request but also resisted the plea for an urgent hearing, maintaining her reluctance to transfer custody without providing substantial reasons. The Family Court Judge’s refusal to even take up the matter for urgent consideration during summer vacations drew sharp criticism from Justice Rohit Joshi.

Judgement:

The High Court expressed its shock and dismay at both the judicial apathy and the mother’s refusal, stating unequivocally that such conduct is unbecoming of a Judge and equally disappointing from a parent. After independently verifying with the hospital that the surgery was indeed scheduled for early June, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order, granted interim custody to the father, and directed that the child be handed over to him by May 28, 2025, for the surgery. The father was given custody for the period of hospitalisation, with a provision for the mother to regain custody subject to further medical advice. The judge also highlighted the importance of prioritising a child’s health and well-being over procedural delays and called for more empathetic conduct from judicial officers handling sensitive family matters. The decision reinstated the balance between urgency, parental responsibility, and judicial duty, reminding lower courts to respond promptly to cases involving critical health concerns.