Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware v. Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj

Bombay HC18 Feb 2026IA/12876/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Interim Application No. 12876 of 2025 in Family Court Appeal No. 42 of 2025; Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware (applicant, grandmother, in person) v. Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj (respondent, biological father; counsel Vedant Bhende); child custody of minor girl Sia aged 13; wishes and maturity of the minor child; independent interaction in Chambers; Standard VII student; custody retained with biological father; grandmother's application disposed; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application disposed of; prayer for transfer of the girl child's custody to the applicant not acceded to. In the pending Family Court Appeal No. 42 of 2025, the appellant is permitted to file certain documents in the Registry, and the Appeal is to be listed in due course. ¶¶18

Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware vs Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the applicant's (grandmother's) interim application, the custody of the girl child Sia (aged 13) should be decided/transferred from the respondent (her biological father) to the applicant, considering the urgency pleaded.

¶¶10

Court's answer

On independent interaction in Chambers, the Bench found the girl Sia mature enough and capable of understanding the consequences of her decisions, particularly her decision to continue staying with the respondent, her biological father; she is studying in Standard VII and intends to continue staying with him.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

The child is comfortable in the presence of her father and expressed that she is not desirous of continuing any relation with her grandmother (the applicant); the Bench respects her decision.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

Despite the grandmother's anxiety and several accusations levelled against the father, the Bench does not deem it appropriate to transfer the custody of Sia, aged 13 years, to the applicant, as the child is in the custody of her biological father.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Dangre & Deshpande, JJ., in Chambers), by order dated 18.02.2026 in Interim Application No. 12876 of 2025 in Family Court Appeal No. 42 of 2025 (Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware v. Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj): the applicant-grandmother sought an urgent decision on the custody of the girl child Sia, aged 13. The Bench interacted independently with the child in Chambers, found her mature enough to understand the consequences of her decisions; she expressed the desire to continue staying with the respondent, her biological father, with whom she is comfortable, and stated she was not desirous of continuing any relation with her grandmother. Respecting the child's decision, and notwithstanding the grandmother's anxiety and accusations against the father, the Bench declined to transfer custody to the applicant and disposed of the Interim Application. The applicant was permitted to file certain documents in the Registry in the admitted Family Court Appeal, which is to be listed in due course.

¶1

1/2 IA 12876-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12876 OF 2025 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2025

¶5

Smt.Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware .. Applicant Versus Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj .. Respondent …

¶6

Smt.Kalpana Bhoware, applicant in person. Mr.Vedant Bhende for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 18^th FEBRUARY, 2026 (In Chambers)

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

1 The Family Court Appeal is already admitted.

¶10

2 As far as Interim Application filed by the applicant is concerned, where she prayed for a decision in the girl child custody, considering the urgency so as to avoid further complications in her life, we requested for the presence of the girl Sia in our chamber.

¶11

We independently interacted with her and found her to be mature enough and capable of understanding the consequences of her decisions, and particularly her decision to continue her stay with the respondent, who is her biological

¶12

Tilak

¶13

2/2 IA 12876-25.doc

¶14

father. She is presently pursuing in Standard VII and intend to continue to stay with him.

¶15

2 We also interacted with the applicant and the respondent, who are grandmother and the biological father of Sia, and we find that she is comfortable in presence of the father and she express that she is not desirous of continuing any relation with her grandmother.

¶16

We respect her decision.

¶17

Despite the grandmother expressing her anxiety that she is not safe in the custody of her father with several accusations being levelled against him, we do not deem it appropriate to consider the same for transferring the custody of Sia, aged 13 years to her, as according to her, she is in the custody of her biological father.

¶18

In the wake of the aforesaid, the Interim Application stand disposed of.

¶19

As far as the Appeal is concerned, since the appellant is desirous of filing certain documents, we permit the same to file in the Registry.

¶20

Appeal be listed in due course.

¶21

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶22

Tilak

Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware v. Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Mahesh Bhoware v. Ashish Harikrishna Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shambhulal Gulab Pal vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary of Ministry of Energy and Ors.

Mane Finance Private Limited vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Sarala Daniel Gajbhiv vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

The Chief Officer The Maharashtra housing and Area Development Board vs Sujeet H Shukla

Ashish Complex Building NO.9 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Union of India through the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ansari Waqar Ahmad Mohd. Yusuf vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.