Aakansha Roy Rasmussen v. Adwait Anil Dixit (2015 SCC OnLine Bom 558)
Classroom-style child custody explainer — how the court centres the welfare of the child, weighs a teen’s choice, and manages contact with both parents.
```
Bombay High Court
2015
Child Custody / Guardianship
Citation: 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 558
Reading time: 7–9 min
Table of Contents
HorizontalQuick Summary
A 13-year-old girl was at the centre of a long custody fight. The court tried for a friendly settlement to reduce her stress. Talks failed, so the court decided on merits.
Rule applied: welfare of the child is paramount. Children are not chattels. Courts must balance the child’s needs with both parents’ rights.
Here, the child wanted to live with her mother in Denmark. She was mature enough to express a choice. The High Court allowed custody with the mother, while protecting regular contact with the father in India.
Issues
- Should custody be shifted if it better serves the child’s welfare?
Rules
- Welfare first: Parents do not have absolute rights over children’s lives. Courts must ensure healthy, balanced growth of the child.
- Balance: In a dispute, courts weigh the child’s welfare with each parent’s rights and strike a fair balance.
- Child’s voice: A capable child’s wishes are relevant and can guide the outcome.
Facts — Timeline
View Image
Pre-litigation: Parties divorced by consent (02-05-2008). Custody with father; mother had visitation (2nd & 4th Sundays).
After divorce: Mother moved to Denmark; later divorced (2012). Father remarried; child stayed with father, stepmother, and stepsister.
Access disputes: Mother alleged denial of access; Family Court modified terms to allow calls/e-access and vacation access.
2013: Child emailed mother expressing desire to live with her. Mother sought change of custody and interim custody.
Family Court view: Welfare is paramount; custody can shift if it serves the child’s welfare.
Arguments
Appellant (Mother)
- Child’s welfare supports living with the mother; child clearly wishes to move.
- Access was obstructed earlier; needs a stable and loving environment.
- Career abroad should not bar custody if the child thrives and stays connected to father.
Respondent (Father)
- Child is settled with father, stepmother, and stepsister.
- Denied alienating the child; claimed compliance with consent terms.
- Feared disruption by shifting custody overseas.
Judgment
- Custody shifted to mother in Denmark. The child, aged 13, was capable of making this choice; her preference aligned with welfare.
- Career abroad not a disqualifier. A parent’s foreign residence cannot, by itself, defeat custody if welfare is protected.
- Contact safeguarded. Vacations with father in India; one trip’s cost borne by mother; electronic contact open; father may visit Denmark with prior notice.
Bottom line: Welfare > parental claims. A mature child’s voice matters, and courts can craft cross-border contact plans.
Ratio Decidendi
In custody disputes, the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare. A capable child’s preference is a key factor. Courts may shift custody and still preserve meaningful contact with the other parent through structured access.
Why It Matters
- Confirms welfare principle over strict parental rights.
- Shows courts can honour a teenager’s informed choice.
- Provides a model for cross-border parenting plans.
Key Takeaways
- Welfare first, always.
- Teen’s preference counts if mature and consistent.
- Custody can shift when facts change or welfare demands.
- Access must be preserved with clear travel and contact terms.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “WIT: Welfare – Intention (child’s) – Travel-plan.”
- Welfare: Centre the child’s growth and safety.
- Intention: Hear the mature child’s steady preference.
- Travel-plan: Protect the other parent’s time and contact.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custody should shift to the mother abroad. | Welfare of the child is paramount; child’s capable preference is relevant. | Child (13) wishes to live with mother; environment and access plan protect ties with father. | Custody moved to mother with structured vacations, costs, and open communication. |
Glossary
- Welfare Principle
- The child’s best interests override competing parental claims.
- Access / Visitation
- Scheduled time and contact with the non-custodial parent.
- Capable Preference
- A mature child’s consistent, informed choice about living arrangements.
FAQs
Not always. The wish must align with welfare. If harmful or manipulated, the court may refuse it.
No. Courts design access for calls, social media, visits, and holidays to keep strong ties alive.
No by itself. The focus remains the child’s education, stability, and emotional health, with workable access to the other parent.
Here, the mother bears one trip’s cost. Courts tailor costs based on fairness and the family’s means.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now