This is one of the most urgent and emotionally charged concerns I encounter in matrimonial practice, and I want to address it with the seriousness it deserves, because the risk of a child being taken abroad during a divorce is not merely a custody inconvenience — it can fundamentally disrupt a child's stability and, if not handled correctly, create genuinely difficult cross-border legal complications. The good news is that yes, you absolutely can object, and Indian law gives you real, enforceable tools to prevent your child from being taken out of the country without your consent while divorce proceedings are ongoing in Mumbai. But because prevention is far easier and more effective than recovery after the fact, I want to walk you through both the legal basis for objecting and the concrete protective steps you should take immediately.

The foundational legal framework here comes from the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read together with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, for Hindu families, or general guardianship principles for other communities. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, both parents have recognised roles in relation to their minor child, and neither parent can unilaterally make major decisions — including relocating the child internationally — without proper regard for the other parent's rights and the child's best interests, particularly once divorce or custody proceedings are underway. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act establishes that the court within whose jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides has the authority to decide matters relating to the guardianship and custody of that child, and Section 12 of the same Act specifically empowers the court, pending final disposal of a guardianship application, to make such interim orders as it deems proper for the welfare of the minor, including orders temporarily restraining the removal of the child from the court's jurisdiction. This is your primary statutory tool, and it is available to you right now if proceedings are already underway, or can be invoked alongside filing your divorce petition if not yet filed.

Practically speaking, if you have genuine reason to believe your spouse intends to take your child abroad without your consent — whether because of a stated intention, a pattern of behaviour, family ties overseas, or any other credible indication — your advocate should act immediately to seek an ad-interim injunction from the Family Court in Mumbai restraining your spouse from removing the child from India, or from the court's jurisdiction, without prior permission of the court. This application can be filed even before the main custody or divorce proceedings are fully argued, since courts recognise that the risk of a child being taken abroad creates genuine urgency, and Mumbai's Family Courts, along with the Bombay High Court in its supervisory capacity, have consistently shown willingness to grant such interim protective orders where a credible risk is demonstrated.

Alongside seeking an injunction, a second and equally important protective step involves the child's passport and travel documentation. Under the Passport (Application, Fees, Miscellaneous) Rules and the general framework of the Passports Act, 1967, an application for a minor's passport, or its renewal, generally requires the consent of both parents, or in the case of divorced or separated parents, either mutual consent through the prescribed Annexure forms or a court order specifically addressing custody and travel. If you have a genuine apprehension about your child being taken abroad, your advocate can write formally to the Regional Passport Office flagging the pending custody dispute and requesting that no fresh passport be issued, or that an existing passport not be renewed, for your child without the specific consent of both parents or a court order, since passport authorities are generally responsive to such formal representations, especially where accompanied by evidence of pending matrimonial or guardianship proceedings. If your child already holds a valid passport, you can also apply to the Family Court seeking a direction that the passport be deposited with the court registry for the duration of the proceedings, which is a commonly used and effective preventive measure in high-risk custody disputes in Mumbai.

A third protective measure, particularly relevant if you have specific and credible information suggesting imminent travel, is applying for a Look Out Circular in respect of the child, which can be issued through the appropriate law enforcement channels upon a proper application supported by evidence of the pending dispute and the risk of unauthorised removal. This can prevent the child's departure at the airport itself, even at a stage where other measures may not have been fully processed, and Mumbai's immigration authorities do act on such circulars when properly issued in connection with genuine, documented custody concerns.

It is important for you to understand why prevention through these mechanisms matters so much, because recovering a child who has already been taken abroad is significantly more complicated than most people expect, and this is where I want to be candid with you about a genuine gap in India's legal framework. India is not currently a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980, which is the primary international treaty designed to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence to another signatory country. Because India has not acceded to this Convention, if your child is taken to a country that is itself a Hague signatory, that country's authorities are not automatically bound to return the child to India simply because Indian courts have made a custody determination here — the matter often has to be separately litigated in the foreign jurisdiction, applying that country's own domestic law, which may or may not give full weight to the Indian court's orders. This makes preventive action, before any removal occurs, considerably more valuable than after-the-fact recovery efforts.

That said, if your child has already been taken abroad without your consent, you are not without options, though the path becomes more difficult. The Supreme Court of India, in decisions such as Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw (1987) and more recent rulings including Lahari Sakhamuru v. Sobhan Kodali (2019) and Prateek Gupta v. Shilpi Gupta (2018), has consistently emphasised that the paramount consideration in any custody or child removal dispute is the welfare and best interests of the child, and Indian courts, including the Bombay High Court, have shown willingness to issue directions, including through writ petitions of habeas corpus where a child has been wrongfully retained or removed, seeking the child's production and return. Where the other country involved is a Hague signatory and India has bilateral cooperation arrangements, or where the foreign court is willing to independently assess the child's best interests, Indian court orders and evidence of the parent's conduct in removing the child can carry significant persuasive weight, even without formal Hague Convention machinery, but this typically requires engaging local counsel in the foreign jurisdiction alongside your Indian advocate, and can be a considerably longer and more expensive process than preventing the removal in the first place.

Given this reality, my strong advice to any client raising this concern is to treat prevention as the priority, and to act immediately rather than waiting for a definite sign that removal is imminent. If your divorce or custody proceedings are already before the Mumbai Family Court, your advocate should, as a matter of course, seek specific directions addressing international travel for the child — whether through an outright restraint pending final custody determination, or through a structured arrangement requiring mutual written consent, advance notice, and security deposits or undertakings before any foreign travel is permitted, even for genuine purposes like family visits or vacations. Many Mumbai Family Courts now routinely build such safeguards into interim custody orders precisely because of the heightened risk profile in contested matrimonial matters, and having this addressed proactively, before any dispute over travel arises, is far preferable to reacting after your spouse has already taken independent action.

If your spouse has genuine, legitimate reasons for international travel with the child — visiting extended family, educational opportunities, or similar circumstances — the court will typically not refuse all travel outright, but will instead impose reasonable conditions: requiring the travelling parent to furnish an undertaking to return the child by a specified date, depositing security or a bond with the court, providing a copy of the return ticket, and sometimes requiring the child to hold only one passport (rather than a foreign passport that could facilitate settling abroad) during the pendency of proceedings. Your advocate should propose these kinds of structured safeguards rather than an absolute, unreasonable restriction, since courts are more likely to grant a request for conditions that appropriately balance the child's relationship with extended family against genuine flight-risk concerns, than an outright prohibition that a court may view as excessive without clear supporting evidence.

Because the stakes here are so high, and because the practical difference between acting preventively and reacting after removal has occurred is so significant, this is a situation where I would strongly encourage you to seek experienced guidance without delay. Speaking with our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice connects you with family law advocates who handle exactly these urgent custody and international travel disputes in Mumbai's Family Courts, and gives you access to a panel of retired judges available for consultation, whose experience deciding custody and guardianship matters from the bench can help you assess the genuine level of risk in your situation and determine precisely which combination of protective orders — injunctions, passport restrictions, Look Out Circulars — should be pursued immediately.

If you need to move quickly on an urgent application, having representation that understands Mumbai's Family Court procedures for interim custody and travel restraint orders is essential, since these applications often need to be filed and argued on very short notice. You can connect with experienced practitioners through Top Divorce Lawyers in Mumbai | Aapka Legal Advice, and for a fuller sense of how the platform's broader family law and retired judges' panel can support your case, you can also visit Aapka Legal Advice directly.

To answer your question clearly: yes, you can absolutely object to your child being taken abroad during divorce proceedings in Mumbai, and Indian law gives you meaningful tools to prevent this — including interim injunctions under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act restraining removal of the child from the court's jurisdiction, formal representations to passport authorities to prevent issuance or renewal of the child's passport without proper consent, court-ordered deposit of the child's passport with the registry, and Look Out Circulars where a credible risk is shown. Because India's non-membership in the Hague Convention makes recovery genuinely difficult once a child has already been taken abroad, the most effective strategy is always preventive — securing clear, specific court directions addressing international travel at the earliest possible stage of your proceedings, so that your child's stability and your parental rights are protected before any risk materialises rather than after.