Bombay High Court

VINOD BABRUWAN HULSUREversusUDHAVRAO PANDURANG GAMBHIRE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court quashed the Family Court's order and remanded the application for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the minor's consent is essential for temporary custody.

Summary

The petitioner, a father, sought interim custody of his minor daughter for the Diwali holidays, filing an application (Exh.51) in the Family Court, Latur. The Family Court rejected the temporary custody request and granted limited visitation rights, a decision the petitioner challenged by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the period for the requested custody and the granted visitation had elapsed and that the impugned order was four years old. Considering the nature of the dispute and the minor's age, the Court held that the Family Court should re‑examine the application afresh, giving the child an opportunity to express her consent. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the earlier order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months, and directed the parties to appear before the Family Court on a specified date.

Issues considered

Whether the Family Court's order rejecting temporary custody and granting only visitation can be set aside.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to temporary custody of the minor during her vacation pending final determination.
Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the Family Court.
Whether the minor's consent is a necessary condition for granting temporary custody.

Subjects

family law
child custody
temporary custody
visitation rights
minor's consent
writ petition
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42813

WP.6485.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6485 OF 2023

Vinod Babruwan Hulsure
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The District Collector And Another

----
Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.Pravin G. Patil, Advocate for respondent
----

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
ORDER :-

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2022, passed

by the Family Court, Latur on an application Exh.51 in Petition No.D-6

of 2021, the petitioner/father of minor daughter is before this court.

2. The petitioner filed application (Exh.51) with the following

prayer :-

(A) By allowing the present application, the
interim custody of the minor daughter namely
Mansa d/o Vinod Hulsure, may kindly be ordered
to given to the applicant Vinod Babruwahan
Hulsure from 15.10.2022 till 05.11.2022 in order
to have Diwali festivity in the company and
association of the natural father of the minor;
2 WP.6485.2022

3. Vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2022, the trial

court rejected the prayer for temporary custody but granted the

visitation right on 31.10.2022 and 01.11.2022 between 03.00 p.m.

and 05.00 a.m. in the Children’s Complex. Suffice it to note, the

visitation right was in addition to the consent terms at Exh.23.

4. Present Writ Petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

B. By finding fault with the impugned order
passed by the learned trial Court, being Family
Court, Latur in petition No. D6 / 2021 passed
below Exh. 51 decided on 17.10.2022, the said
order may kindly be ordered to be upset on
merits and it be further held and declared that
the observations in the said order would not
affect the merits of the matter, during pendency
of the said custody petition;

C. It be furthered held and declared that the
petitioner is entitled to seek for the temporary
custody of the minor daughter during her
vacations, pending hearing and final decision of
the custody proceeding before the trial Court i.e.
Petition No. D-6/2021;

D. If felt appropriate and possible, the
learned trial Court be directed to expedite the
custody petition and to adjudge the same within
a time bound manner
3 WP.6485.2022

5. I have heard both sides extensively. Obviously, the

period for which the temporary custody was sought under

application Exh.51 is now over. So also, the period for which the

visitation right was granted is also over.

6. At this juncture and on this backdrop, Mr.Surve, learned

advocate for the petitioner prays for grant of prayer clauses (C) and

(D) in this Writ Petition.

7. In have been apprised by Mr.Surve, learned advocate for

the petitioner and Mr.Patil, learned advocate for the respondent,

that the impugned order as could been is passed four years back.

8. In view of the above and considering the nature of the

subject-matter, I deem it appropriate to relegate the matter back for

fresh consideration by the Family Court. In the fitness of

circumstances, I think it appropriate that the minor daughter be also

given an opportunity to offer her consent for arrangement of

temporary custody considering her age and the controversy among

the parties.
4 WP.6485.2022

9. Hence, the following order:-

(A) The Writ Petition stands partly allowed. The impugned

order dated 17.10.2022, passed by Family Court, Latur, on an

application Exh.51 in Petition No.D-6 of 2021 is quashed and set

aside. The matter is relegated back to the Family Court for fresh

consideration.

(B) The Family Court shall decide the application Exh.51

afresh within a period of three months from today, purely on its own

merit.

the observations made by this court (supra), the Family Court may

arrange presence of the minor daughter to put up her opinion or

consent as regards the request made by the petitioner/father in his

application. Considering the age of the minor daughter, her consent

for temporary custody would be a sine qua non.

(D) The parties are at consensus that they will appear before

the Family Court on 03.10.2026.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
………..
KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…