The Bombay High Court at Goa has underscored the growing autonomy of adolescent children in custody matters, particularly when they are capable of expressing informed preferences.

In an order dated April 9, a Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a mother seeking the return of her 15-year-old son from the custody of his father in Goa. The Court gave weight to the boy’s firm decision to stay with his father, stating:

“Though he is below 18 and therefore technically a child, he is just two years shy of adulthood. We find that he has made an independent decision and should not be compelled to follow choices made by others, including this Court.”

The case arose after the child, who had been living with his mother in Canada for around five years, failed to return following a vacation in India with his father in March 2025. The parents, both Indian citizens, had mutually divorced in 2019, with a Goa court granting the mother primary custody and allowing the father visitation rights for up to 56 days annually.

The mother alleged that the father wrongfully retained the child in India, accused him of abducting the boy, forging documents to obtain a new passport, and manipulating the child’s views. She argued that this not only violated the custody arrangement but also jeopardised the child’s flourishing academic life in Ontario.

In response, the father asserted that the child had voluntarily chosen to stay with him. He had enrolled the boy in Ontario Virtual School, which would allow him to pursue an equivalent diploma online. He also maintained that his custody was not unlawful, as there was no indication of harm to the child.

The Court personally interacted with the boy and found his responses to be mature and unequivocal.

“We could hear the voice of a young man, developing into an adult,” the judges observed. “He is at a psychologically vulnerable age—full of emotional turmoil and confusion—but he was clear in his desire not to return to Canada or be forced into the company of his mother. To compel him would risk serious emotional and psychological harm.”

Although the Court declined to order the child’s return to Canada, it upheld the mother's legal custody and directed both parents to ensure his continued education through online schooling. The mother was asked to cooperate with this arrangement, while the father was instructed to facilitate regular interactions with her to rebuild the parent-child relationship.

“We expect the petitioner [mother] to respect his decision,” the Court noted, emphasizing that the welfare of an adolescent child must include the right to make choices for himself.

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, along with advocate Caroline Collasso, represented the petitioner-mother. The father was represented by Senior Advocate A.A. Agni, assisted by advocates J. Shaikh and Harihar. Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai appeared on behalf of the State of Goa.