Toddler's Weekly Court Marathon Deemed 'Inhuman': Gujarat HC Delivers Child-First Verdict

In a poignant rebuke to rigid courtroom tactics, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed a family court order that turned a two-and-a-half-year-old boy's life into a weekly ordeal. Justice J.C. Doshi ruled that forcing the child's mother, Mansiben Ghetiya, to haul her crying toddler to court every Thursday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. for "access" by the paternal grandfather was not just unfathomable—it was a betrayal of the child's welfare. This decision underscores that family courts must prioritize empathy over enforcement in custody battles.

From Family Loss to Courtroom Battleground

The saga began after the tragic death of the child's father, son of respondent Keshavjibhai Damjibhai Ghetiya , less than a year prior. The mother, Mansiben—now remarried—moved to her new home with the minor boy, prompting the grandfather to file a petition under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 , seeking permanent custody. What escalated into controversy was the family court's interim order below Exh.19 in Civil Misc. Application No. (DC) 03 of 2025 at Dhrol-Jodiya.

Without any formal prayer for relief—Exh.19 was merely a pursis (unilateral declaration)—the court mandated the mother to appear with the child every working Thursday in court premises. The order barred her second husband from attending and required both sides to handle the child's food, even allowing gifts. Subsequent orders amplified the strain: celebrating the child's birthday in court, medical reports on unrequested grounds, and enforced presence from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The mother challenged this under Article 227 of the Constitution via Special Civil Application No. 15369 of 2025.

Mother's Plea: 'This Isn't Welfare—It's Trauma'

Represented by advocate Premal S. Rachh, the mother argued the order exceeded jurisdiction. Exh.19 sought no relief, yet it morphed into a 6-hour weekly custody mandate for a clinging toddler who "does not leave an inch from the lap of his mother." She highlighted the insensitivity: the child cried incessantly in court, wanting only his mother and stepfather. Orders targeted her non-party husband, forced court birthdays, and ignored the boy's tender age. "The Family Court has taken a complete illogical approach," her counsel urged, praying for quashing.

Grandfather's Stand: 'Cut Off from Grandchild'

Advocate Henil M. Shah, for the grandfather, defended the order as justified. Post-father's death and mother's remarriage, she had allegedly denied access by relocating without consent. The interim measure was "correct and proper," he contended, urging the high court's limited supervisory role under Article 227 to refrain from interference.

Echoes of Supreme Court Wisdom: Welfare Above All

Justice Doshi's bench drew deeply from precedents, emphasizing the parens patriae doctrine—courts as ultimate guardians of the child. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009), the Supreme Court held child welfare paramount, not parental rights, construing "welfare" broadly to include moral, ethical, and psychological needs. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) urged a "human touch," weighing comfort, health, and ethics over strict law.

Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) stressed avoiding trauma in separations, ensuring visitation without denying parental bonds. Even Halsbury's Laws reinforced: welfare is "first and paramount," with equal parental rights. The bench critiqued the family court's "harsh and obdurate approach" at an interim stage, sans evidence—doubting the mother's care via unasked medical reports and enforcing court rituals.

As reported by Bar & Bench , the high court lambasted: "Barely two and half years aged minor has become... victim of inhuman approach," forcing the mother into weekly pilgrimages "under the guise of access to grandparents."

Punchy Pronouncements from the Bench

  • "In custody matter family court is required to adopt sensitive, humane and child centric approach... Disputes over custody are not merely legal contests... but directly affecting the emotional, psychological, and developmental welfare of the child."

  • "The minor, when was present before the Court, he was constantly crying and was intended to go outside with his mother and stepfather... The finding of the learned Family Court is complete uncalled for and insensitive."

  • "The view and approach of the learned Family Court is unfathomable... Such order forcing the petitioner mother and the minor... on every Thursday... is uncalled for and unjust."

  • "The children are not mere chattels: nor are they mere play-things for their parents." ( Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal , quoted)

Relief for the Child: Order Annihilated

The petition succeeded emphatically. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 below Exh.19 stands quashed and set aside . This resets the custody proceedings toward child-friendly norms, signaling to lower courts: interim orders must minimize trauma, not manufacture it. Future cases may cite this for calibrated visitation—perhaps home-based or supervised neutrally—sparing toddlers the courtroom's glare. For Mansiben and her son, Thursdays reclaim normalcy; for family law, a reminder that justice wears a child's shoes.