Custody Battle Ends in Denial: Habeas Corpus Petition by Father Rejected

In a significant decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench), a father’s plea for the custody of his U.S. citizen son was dismissed. The Court held that the child’s welfare and jurisdictional propriety override foreign custody orders, especially when the child is living with the biological mother in India. The Court advised the father to pursue alternative legal remedies under civil laws.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vishnu Gupta, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking custody of his minor son, Agastya Gupta, who is a U.S. citizen by birth. Vishnu and his wife, Shilpi Khaira, were married in India and later moved to the U.S., where their son was born in 2015.

Due to marital discord, the wife returned to India with the child in 2018 and has since been residing in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. Despite a U.S. court order dated 04.04.2023 granting sole custody to the father, the mother allegedly refused to comply or allow any contact between father and son.

Legal Provisions Involved in the Case

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs including Habeas Corpus.
• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Pertaining to custody and guardianship of minors.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Especially Sections 13, 14, and 44A related to enforceability of foreign judgments in India.

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner’s Arguments (Vishnu Gupta):

• The Superior Court of New Jersey had awarded him sole physical and legal custody.
• The child’s detention in India is illegal and in violation of international legal principles.
• The doctrine of comity of courts requires Indian courts to respect and enforce valid foreign custody judgments.
• Several representations were made to Indian authorities and child welfare bodies, with no fruitful outcome.
• Cited judgments of the Supreme Court (Yashita Sahu, Tejaswini Gaud) in support of enforcement of foreign court orders through writ jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Arguments (Shilpi Khaira):

• The petition was an attempt to enforce a foreign decree through a writ of habeas corpus, which is not maintainable when alternate civil remedies exist.
• Alleged the petitioner’s abusive conduct forced her return to India for her and her child’s safety.
• Cited Nithya Anand Raghavan, Kanika Goel, and Prateek Gupta judgments, asserting that the welfare of the child prevails over comity of courts.
• The child, living with his biological mother, cannot be said to be in unlawful custody.
• Petitioner’s plea for enforcement should be routed through civil courts under the Guardians and Wards Act or by invoking Sections 13, 14, and 44A of CPC.

 Court’s Observations

• The Court recognized the foreign custody order but emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount.
• Noted that the child, aged 10, is living with his mother — a natural guardian — which cannot be termed as “illegal custody.”
• The habeas corpus jurisdiction cannot be used to directly enforce a foreign custody order.
• The petitioner should pursue remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act or execution proceedings under CPC.
• Referred to the binding three-judge bench decision in Nithya Anand Raghavan, which laid down that writ courts should not act as executing courts for foreign judgments.
• The Court declined to act upon the foreign order summarily and did not find sufficient ground to change the custody status.

 Conclusion of the Judgment

The writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court expressed hope that the respondent (mother) may, at her discretion, allow the petitioner to interact with the child — either physically or via video call. This was an expectation and not a judicial directive, leaving scope for personal reconciliation.

 Criticism from a Men’s Rights Standpoint (in simple language)

This case highlights a troubling trend in custody disputes involving estranged parents across international borders. When a father, despite being granted full legal and physical custody by a competent foreign court, is denied enforcement of that order by the Indian judiciary, it raises serious concerns about parity in parental rights.

While the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount remains unchallenged, the manner in which it is interpreted and applied often results in fathers being denied meaningful access to their own children. Here, the petitioner made consistent and documented efforts through legal channels, including foreign courts, international agencies, child protection commissions, and Indian authorities. Yet, his rights as a parent were systematically sidelined.

The Court’s reliance on the idea that a biological mother’s custody is “not unlawful” — even when in contravention of an authoritative custody order — sets a precedent where custodial rights can be effectively neutralized through strategic relocation. This not only undermines legal certainty but emboldens unilateral decisions by one parent, typically the one with physical custody, with little consequence.

Furthermore, directing the aggrieved parent to pursue long, emotionally exhaustive, and often ineffective remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act or civil execution provisions does little to alleviate the practical injustice suffered. The law, in theory, may offer recourse — but in practice, procedural delays and systemic inertia render these remedies insufficient in preserving the child’s bond with both parents.

While the Court did express a non-binding expectation that the mother consider allowing contact between the father and child, such a suggestion offers no enforceable right. It reduces the father’s role to one of moral appeal rather than legal entitlement — a position no committed parent should be placed in.

The larger issue remains unaddressed: when will the system recognize that a child deserves access to both parents, and that custody battles should not be a vehicle for punishing one at the emotional cost of the other? Until laws are interpreted and enforced in a way that genuinely upholds balanced parenting and discourages unilateral custodial decisions, such outcomes will continue to erode faith in the system — especially for non-custodial parents who follow every legal avenue but still come away empty-handed.

Final Thoughts:

This case is a painful reminder that in cross-border custody disputes, procedural technicalities often outweigh lived realities. Legal recognition of parental rights must not depend solely on geography or assumptions about who is the “natural” caregiver. What’s needed is a more compassionate, balanced, and timely approach that ensures a child’s right to both parents, rather than reducing one to a distant memory governed by discretionary visits.

Read Complete Judgement Here