Custody Law Crossroads: Why DV Act Can’t Replace Guardianship Proceedings

 Imagine a mother seeking to take her child abroad for over two years for studies or work—but doing so without the father’s consent and through a petition under the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act). Sounds like a tricky situation? The recent court ruling has made it clear why such cases can’t be decided lightly or through interim orders.

What Is Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act?

Section 21 is all about temporary custody—a quick, protective measure given by a Magistrate to keep a child safe during ongoing domestic violence proceedings. It’s designed to step in fast, not to decide complex long-term custody battles.

The Court’s Take: Why Temporary Custody Isn’t a Passport to Permanent Relocation

In this landmark judgment, the court emphasized that asking to relocate a child internationally for 2.5 years (or more!) is not a temporary fix. It’s a permanent, life-changing decision involving:

• The child's overall welfare and development

• The possibility for the other parent to maintain visitation rights

• Whether promises made about care abroad are reliable and enforceable

• The effects on existing legal rights and pending court cases

Because these issues are so complicated, courts ruled this is a job for the Family Courts or District Courts under the Guardians and Wards Act, where detailed investigations can happen.

Why Can’t the Domestic Violence Act Handle This?

The court pointed out that the D.V. Act aims at protection, not substituting full guardianship or custody battles. Using it to ask for international relocation is like trying to bypass the proper legal process—known as “shortcutting” the guardianship laws. The law requires thorough scrutiny to ensure the child’s best interests are served.

Real Concerns Behind the Scenes

The father’s side raised valid points: losing contact with the child, delays or obstructions in legal matters, and shaky assurances about the child’s care while abroad. Plus, the supposed caregiver in the foreign country only had a visitor’s visa for three months, raising doubts about the arrangement’s durability.

The Bottom Line: Protecting the Child’s Best Interests

While the court recognizes the child’s welfare as the top priority, it insists on proper legal channels to decide major matters like long-term custody and international relocation.

Temporary custody orders under Section 21 remain exactly that—temporary. For anything beyond short-term protection, including international moves of years, families must approach Family Courts where comprehensive welfare hearings take place.

This ruling underscores the importance of following the right legal path when it comes to a child’s custody and relocation. Quick, temporary orders can protect in emergencies, but big decisions need full judicial care and attention to protect the child’s future.

Print Page