A family court in Junagadh has ordered the immediate return of a one-year-old baby boy to his mother, in an ex parte order passed 94 days after a family suit was filed on January 21, 2026. The order was delivered by Principal Judge Prem Hansraj Singh.
Court Order Details
In its order dated April 24, the court directed the husband and his parents to hand over custody to the mother within 48 hours of receiving the order. It granted visitation rights to the father and grandparents for two hours on the second and fourth Sunday of every calendar month. The court directed A Division police to trace the child, secure custody and deliver him to the mother with utmost sensitivity and without unnecessary force, and to submit a compliance report within 10 days.
Allegations by the Mother
The woman plaintiff stated that she married on November 12, 2023, in Rajkot. She gave birth to a baby boy on April 21, 2025. The child required medical care at birth due to a low heart rate and was hospitalized. According to the plaintiff, after the birth the defendants took her to Junagadh, where she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. She alleged that her mother-in-law prevented her from touching, feeding or caring for her infant. The plaintiff further alleged that when the child was four months old, the defendants administered cold water to the infant, contrary to medical advice, after which the child developed pneumonia. She said she was denied access to her baby even during the illness. She stated that on January 1, 2026, when she expressed a desire to visit her parents' home, she was told she could leave but would have to leave the child behind. She said that on January 2, 2026, when her mother arrived from Rajkot, the defendants refused to allow the infant to leave. She was expelled from her matrimonial home on January 6, 2026, she alleged. Attempts by her family to reconcile and recover the child on January 8, 2026, failed. The plaintiff said complaints were lodged at A Division police station and the women's police station but did not result in redress, prompting her to approach the court.
Legal Proceedings and Court's Reasoning
The court recorded that despite being served notice, all three defendants failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. It accepted the plaintiff's affidavit-cum-deposition, supported by her Aadhaar card, marriage certificate, the minor's birth certificate, and transcripts and pen-drive recordings of telephonic conversations between the parties. In its reasoning, the court placed the welfare of the minor at the forefront and applied Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The court noted that the father and the paternal grandfather were frequently absent from Gujarat for extended periods, making consistent care of an infant unfeasible. It observed that custody matters must be decided with a "human touch" as the primary consideration, and that a mother's care plays an irreplaceable role in the growth and development of an infant. The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the child's welfare would be better secured in their custody.
Visitation and Communication Protocol
The order also set out a communication protocol, stating that in unavoidable exigencies, the plaintiff must inform the defendants in advance and reschedule visitation by mutual consent. Both parties were directed to maintain peace and harmony and not obstruct visitation.
