Bombay High Court

SANIKA AKSHAY JOSHI NEE SANIKA PARISH KHANOLKARversusTHE STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 6 ORS

Disposal: Disposed of

Holding

The Court ordered an interim custody schedule and disposed of the habeas corpus petition, directing the parties to seek a substantive custody determination in the appropriate Civil Court.

Summary

The petitioner, a mother, filed a criminal writ petition under habeas corpus seeking the return of her child from the father (Respondent No.3). The Court noted that the child had been in the father's custody since 22 August 2026 and was brought before the Court. It ordered that the child remain with the mother from Monday to Saturday, be handed over to the father on Saturday morning, and return to the mother on Sunday afternoon, pending a civil suit for custody. The interim arrangement is to continue until 8 September 2026, by which date the mother may file a custody application in the appropriate Civil Court. The Court clarified that the interim order does not prejudice any substantive custody determination and disposed of the habeas corpus petition.

Issues considered

What interim custody arrangement is appropriate pending a civil suit for child custody?
Does the habeas corpus petition remain viable after the Court's interim order?
Can the civil court decide custody without being influenced by the interim arrangement?

Subjects

child custody
habeas corpus
interim order
civil court jurisdiction
family law

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1731-DB
                                           4 WPCR(F) 898 2026

                Amrut

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.898 OF 2026 (F)

           SANIKA AKSHAY JOSHI NEE SANIKA
           PARISH KHANOLKAR                                      ... PETITIONER
             Versus
           THE STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC
           PROSECUTOR AND 6 ORS                                  ... RESPONDENTS


           Mr S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sailee Kenny and
           Mr Jayant Karn, Advocates for the Petitioner.
           Petitioner present in person.

           Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor with Mr Preetam Talaulikar,
           Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

           Mr S. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr Tejas Rane, Ms Riddhi
           Ajgaonkar and Mr B. Mahatme, Advocates for Respondent No.3.

           Respondent No.3 present in person.

           Mr Nigel Fernandes, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7.


                                 CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                         S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
                                 DATED :- 27th August, 2026

           P.C.:


           1.           A statement is made by Ms Kenny, learned Advocate for
           the Petitioner, that all office objections have been cleared. We
           accept the statement. The matter may be registered accordingly.




                                               Page 1 of 3
                                             27th August, 2026
                               4 WPCR(F) 898 2026


2.          The child Mast. Ved has been produced in this Court.
Considering that immediately prior to the filing of the petition, the
child was in the custody of the mother, we deem it appropriate that
the child would remain in custody of the mother throughout week
i.e. from Monday to Saturday and father i.e. Respondent No.3 is
allowed to collect the child, and the child would be reached to the
residence of father at Mapusa on Saturday by 10.00 a.m. and would
spend weekend and will be returned to the mother on Sunday by
lunch i.e. at 1.00 p.m. This direction has been passed considering
only on the consideration that the child has been with the father
from 22nd August 2026 till today, and was brought today to the
Court by the father.


3.           This arrangement shall continue till Tuesday i.e. 8th
September 2026, by which date the Petitioner-mother has agreed to
file an appropriate application seeking custody of the child before
the Civil Court. If such an application is filed, an advance copy
shall be served on Respondent No.3 and the appropriate Civil
Court which has jurisdiction shall decide this application including
passing of any interim order therein without being influenced by
the arrangement made in this order; this order is passed without
prejudice to the contentions that may be raised by either of the
parties in the Civil Court or those may have been raised in the
petition before us.



                                   Page 2 of 3
                                 27th August, 2026
                                                       4 WPCR(F) 898 2026


                     4.           Considering that we have passed orders making interim
                     arrangements till the appropriate Civil Court deals with this issue
                     of custody, nothing further remains to be addressed in this habeas
                     corpus petition and the same stands disposed of with the order
                     stated above to be in operation till 8th September 2026.


                     5.          We also clarify that this arrangement shall have no bearing
                     on the consideration which the Court would apply considering the
                     law of custody on the subject.



                      S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.                      VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: TARI AMRUT NAGESH
Designation: Private Secretary
                                                           Page 3 of 3
Date: 27/08/2026 17:29:31
                                                         27th August, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…