Can a Mother Take a Child to Another City Without the Father’s Consent?

Can a mother take a child to another city without the father’s consent? This is a common concern in matrimonial disputes, particularly when parents are living separately or divorce and child custody proceedings are pending before a court. Under Indian law, a mother does not automatically require the father’s consent every time she wishes to travel with her child or move to another city. However, the legality of such a move depends on the circumstances of the case, the existing custody arrangement, any court orders, and, most importantly, the welfare of the child.

The law governing child custody in India places the welfare and best interests of the child above the competing claims of either parent. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the natural guardian of a Hindu minor boy or unmarried girl is ordinarily the father, and after him, the mother, subject to the statutory qualifications and the child’s welfare. However, this provision does not mean that the father has an absolute right to decide where the child must live. Section 13 of the same Act expressly provides that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointing or declaring a guardian, and no person is entitled to guardianship merely by virtue of their legal status if such guardianship is not in the minor’s welfare.

Further, Sections 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 empower the court to make appropriate orders concerning guardianship and require the court to consider the welfare of the minor, including the child’s age, circumstances, and existing relationships.

If the child is living with the mother and there is no court order restricting relocation, the mother may, depending on the circumstances, move with the child to another city without obtaining the father’s prior consent. Nevertheless, a relocation that substantially affects the father’s visitation rights, the child’s education, stability, or relationship with the other parent may give rise to a custody dispute. The situation becomes more legally sensitive when a court has already passed an interim custody or visitation order, directed that the child reside at a particular place, or imposed conditions concerning travel or relocation. In such cases, the mother must comply with the operative order and should seek clarification or modification from the court where necessary.

A parent cannot disregard a binding court order merely because the parent believes the move is in the child’s best interests.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasised that custody decisions must be guided by the child’s welfare rather than the legal rights or personal preferences of the parents. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, the Supreme Court held that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters and that the rights of parents are subordinate to the child’s well-being. This principle is directly relevant when a parent proposes to relocate, as the court may examine whether the move would provide a safer, more stable, or otherwise more beneficial environment for the child.

Similarly, in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413, the Supreme Court reiterated that the welfare of the minor is the primary consideration and that custody proceedings must be decided by examining the child’s overall well-being rather than merely the legal claims of either parent. Consequently, a mother’s decision to move to another city may be assessed in light of the child’s emotional security, schooling, living arrangements, and continuing relationship with both parents.

Another important decision is Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67, in which the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of a child maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents, unless circumstances make such contact contrary to the child’s welfare.

The Court recognised that visitation is not merely a right of the parent but also serves the child’s interests. Therefore, relocation that makes existing visitation arrangements impracticable without proposing reasonable alternatives may be a relevant consideration in subsequent custody proceedings.

Written By: Adv. Vibhuti Zibbu
Date: 15-Oct-2026