Aakansha Roy Rasmussen v. Adwait Anil Dixit (2015 SCC OnLine Bom 558)

Main point: In custody fights, the welfare of the child is the top rule. The Bombay High Court held that a 13-year-old girl could shift to live with her mother abroad, because that choice and setting served her welfare. Strong visitation and communication rights were fixed for the father.

1. Should custody shift from father to mother if the shift better serves the child’s welfare?

• Welfare Principle: Children are not chattels. Parental power yields to the child’s balanced growth and welfare.
• Custody Flexibility: Courts may shift custody if, on merits, the shift helps the child’s welfare.

• Parents divorced by mutual consent on 02.05.2008; father had custody; mother had 2nd & 4th Sunday access.
• Mother later moved to Denmark and remarried; father remarried and the child lived with father, stepmother, and stepsister.
• Mother alleged denial of access; court modified access—calls/e-communication; vacation access (summer/Diwali).
• 2012: mother visited India; brief supervised meeting with child.
• 2013: mother received email from daughter expressing a wish to live with her; she filed for custody and interim custody.
• Family Court: welfare is paramount; custody can shift if it serves the child.
• Appeal before Bombay High Court on whether shift is in the child’s best interests.

Held: Custody was allowed to shift to the mother in Denmark, as the child herself wanted this and the Court found her capable of making that choice. The mother’s foreign career could not, by itself, be a reason to deny custody. To protect the child’s bond with the father, the Court set clear access terms.

• Child to spend both main vacations with the father in India.
• Mother to bear travel cost for one round trip each year.
• Father to have regular electronic contact (calls, video, social media).
• Father may visit the child in Denmark with prior notice to the mother.

• Paramountcy of welfare: Parental rights yield to what helps the child grow in a healthy, balanced way.
• Minor’s informed preference: A mature teenager’s choice carries weight.
• Balanced orders: If custody shifts, contact and visitation must be secured for the other parent.

This decision is a clear classroom example of the welfare principle in action. It shows that courts can approve relocation if it helps the child, while building strong bridges for continued contact with the other parent.

• Welfare first, parental claims second.
• Teen’s well-considered choice can guide custody.
• Relocation orders must include clear access plans.
• Career or foreign residence is not a disqualifier by itself.

Mnemonic: “Child First, Choice Heard”

1. Child First → Welfare beats parental power.
2. Choice → Mature teen’s wish matters.
3. Heard → Access safeguards for the other parent.

Issue

Whether shifting custody to the mother (abroad) serves the 13-year-old’s welfare better.

Rule

Welfare principle; children are not chattels; courts balance welfare with parental rights; custody may shift if welfare demands.

Application

Child expressed a stable preference to live with the mother; court found the preference mature. Relocation plan included education, stability, and structured access to the father.

Conclusion

Custody shifted to the mother; detailed access and travel directions protected the father–child bond.

Welfare Principle

The child’s overall wellbeing—emotional, educational, social—guides custody decisions.

Relocation

Moving the child’s residence to another city/country after a custody change.

Access / Visitation

Court-set time and modes for the non-custodial parent to stay in touch.

• Cases emphasizing the welfare principle over parental rights.
• Relocation decisions balancing education, stability, and access.
• Orders setting detailed contact and travel frameworks post-custody shift.