Mumbai: In a custody case, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the mother, granting her custody of her three-year-old daughter and rejecting Sahil Raju Gilani's petition. The court prioritized the child's best interests, noting the mother's financial capability to support them both. It clarified that while religion can be a consideration in custody matters, it should not be the primary factor, as stated in Section 17(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act.
The judges confirmed that the child will live in Delhi with her mother, Pernia Sahil Gilani, and reiterated a prior order prohibiting international travel without court approval. Gilani had raised concerns about his wife, a U.S. citizen, potentially relocating their daughter abroad. His lawyer cited Section 354(2) of Mohammedan Law regarding custody but was dismissed by the court, which referenced a Supreme Court ruling affirming the mother's primary guardianship unless harmful to the child. Ultimately, the judges deemed custody with the mother to be in the child's best interest.
In a recent custody dispute, the High Court of Bombay denied a petition from the estranged wife of a hotelier seeking custody of their ten-year-old son, who expressed a desire to stay with his father. Although the court recognized potential paternal influence, it upheld the child's wishes, stressing that custody changes should not be imposed lightly.
The ruling in Sahil Raju Gilani v. State of Maharashtra (2025) highlights that child welfare is paramount, transcending religious personal laws. The court emphasized adherence to secular principles in alignment with international child rights standards, reaffirming India's commitment to a secular legal framework.
Utilizing the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, the court evaluated various factors influencing custody decisions, prioritizing the child's emotional needs over religious considerations. It clarified that Section 17(2) of the Act prioritizes welfare over religious norms, thus dismissing rigid adherence to Mohammedan law, while also noting that habeas corpus procedures are inappropriate in lawful custody cases without exceptional circumstances.
