Introduction:

In a significant ruling reaffirming a mother’s right to child custody, the Bombay High Court, in the matter of SSK v. ASK (Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2024), addressed the issue of whether engaging a maid servant to care for a minor child can serve as a legitimate ground to deny custody to the mother. The case came before the Hon’ble Justice R.M. Joshi following a writ petition filed by the father (SSK) challenging the order of interim custody passed by the Family Court on January 30, 2024, which had granted the custody of the couple’s minor son to the mother (ASK). The petition was decided on February 18, 2025, and later uploaded to the official Bombay High Court website. Advocate R.G. Joshi appeared for the father, while Advocate P.S. Shendurnikar represented the mother in the proceedings.*

Arguments:

In the writ petition before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner-father, SSK, assailed the Family Court’s interim custody order which had granted custody of his minor son to the respondent-mother, ASK. The father’s primary contention was that the mother was unfit to care for the child on two counts: first, that she was suffering from depression and therefore mentally and emotionally incapable of raising the child; and second, that she had engaged a maid servant to look after the child, which according to him, indicated abandonment of motherly responsibilities. Additionally, the father alleged that the mother sought maintenance from him to pay for the maid’s services. He contended that such delegation of care is indicative of a lack of personal attention from the mother, which should disqualify her from being the custodian. In response, the mother, through her counsel, rebutted all claims, asserting that there were no factual or legal grounds to suggest that the welfare of the child was compromised. She emphasized that the child had been residing with her peacefully and safely for over eight months without any reported issues and that the presence of a maid was not a substitute for her own role as a mother but rather a support system common to working or even non-working parents. She also relied on expert medical reports that were commissioned during the pendency of the proceedings which confirmed that she was not suffering from any mental health condition and was fully competent to care for her son.

Judgement:

The High Court, after a detailed examination of the submissions and the Family Court’s reasoning, came to a firm conclusion that there was no illegality or irregularity in the interim custody order. Justice R.M. Joshi dismissed the father’s argument regarding the engagement of a maid by noting that it is neither unusual nor inherently harmful for a parent to appoint domestic help to assist in childcare, particularly in today’s context where it is a prevalent social practice. The Court held that this alone cannot be treated as sufficient ground to disrupt the settled custody of a child, especially when there is no material to show that such an arrangement was detrimental to the child’s welfare. On the point of the mother’s alleged mental health condition, the Court placed reliance on the medical expert’s report, which clearly stated that she was in sound mental health. Justice Joshi observed that there was no credible evidence to substantiate the father’s claim of the mother’s psychological instability and hence rejected the assertion as baseless. Another significant dimension of the case was the derogatory language used by the father in the pleadings before the Family Court. The father had made objectionable remarks concerning the mother’s ability to breastfeed the child, which were considered not only unnecessary but derogatory and disrespectful. The Family Court, in response, had imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the father for such inappropriate language. The High Court took strong note of this aspect, agreeing with the Family Court’s observations and indicating that even the modest cost imposed was lenient. Justice Joshi emphasized that the use of derogatory or gender-insensitive language in legal pleadings undermines the dignity of individuals and has no place in a court of law. However, since the mother had not challenged the quantum of costs, the High Court refrained from increasing it, although it remarked that a higher cost could have been justified. In conclusion, the Bombay High Court reiterated that in custody matters, the paramount consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child. It reaffirmed that unless there is substantial evidence to suggest that the child is being neglected, mistreated, or is in danger under the care of one parent, courts will not lightly interfere with custody arrangements, especially when the child has been living peacefully with one parent for a considerable time. The Court also signaled a strong message that routine household arrangements, such as the appointment of a maid, should not be construed as parental incompetence. Upholding the Family Court’s order in its entirety, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the father, confirming the interim custody of the child with the mother and the Rs. 5,000 cost imposed on the father for using inappropriate language. This decision stands as a significant judicial pronouncement in safeguarding a mother’s autonomy in making support arrangements for child care and deterring litigants from weaponizing gendered narratives or social stereotypes in custody battles.