Parental right to interim custody abroad cannot be denied based on speculative flight risk or financial dependency.

The Appellant (husband) and Respondent (wife) reside in the same house in New Delhi but live separately due to matrimonial discord

In 2026, the Respondent planned a 35-day summer vacation to London with their two minor children from June 15 to July 20

The Appellant moved an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), seeking interim custody of the children in London for a one-week period (June 28 to July 5) during the Respondent’s trip

The Family Court dismissed the application on May 26, 2026, reasoning that the Appellant could instead spend time with the children in India to save money and that there were no cogent reasons to insist on London

The Respondent opposed the appeal, alleging the Appellant was a "flight risk" who might abscond to Mauritius, noting he had no declared income and had sold his Indian business interests

1. Whether the Family Court erred in denying interim custody to the father in a foreign jurisdiction (London) despite granting him liberty to seek custody within India

2. Whether the Appellant posed a "flight risk" sufficient to deny him interim custody abroad

3. Whether the lack of financial contribution toward travel expenses is a valid ground to deny interim custody

Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which grants the court power to pass interim orders regarding the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children consistent with their wishes

Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

the principle that the source of funding for a vacation is not a relevant consideration for determining custody

the welfare of the child includes maintaining a relationship with both parents regardless of geographical location, provided the parent is not a proven flight risk

The Court found the Family Court’s reasoning—that the Appellant should limit his time to India to save his parents' money—unsupported by the record

Since the children had lived in London previously (2015–2019), it was a familiar environment for them

The High Court rejected the Respondent’s "flight risk" argument, noting that if the Appellant intended to abscond, he could just as easily do so during a vacation in India

Furthermore, because the Respondent held the children's passports, it was "highly unlikely" the Appellant could procure duplicates in London to flee to Mauritius

The Court observed that the Respondent’s primary objection was financial; she felt it unfair for the Appellant to have custody without paying for the airfare. The Court resolved this by determining that the Appellant’s right to spend time with his children should not be denied, provided he reimburses the travel costs already incurred by the Respondent

The Court held that the Appellant is entitled to interim custody in London from June 28 to July 5, 2026, subject to two conditions: (i) he must transfer the full cost of the children’s return air tickets to the Respondent by June 25, 2026; and (ii) the children’s passports must remain in the Respondent's custody at all times. The Appellant was expressly prohibited from taking the children outside London during this period