BENGALURU: <\/em>In a custody dispute, the Karnataka High Court<\/a><\/strong>, presided over by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti<\/strong>, examined whether Indian courts had jurisdiction in a case where a child was brought from the United States to India and retained by the father. The case once again brings into focus how fathers often face an uphill battle in custody matters despite being primary caregivers.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The case involved a married couple who had been living in the US with their child. They came to India for a family ritual, after which the father decided to stay back to take care of his ailing father. The mother chose to return to the US to continue her career. The father, who ensured stability for the child, admitted him to a school in Bengaluru and continued raising him in India.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The mother challenged this and argued that the Indian Family Court did not have jurisdiction because the child\u2019s ordinary residence was in the United States. However, the Family Court rejected her objection, stating that since the child was physically present in India at the time of filing, it had jurisdiction.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court, however, took a different view and held that mere physical presence does not decide jurisdiction<\/strong>. It emphasized that ordinary residence is a legal concept and cannot be changed by unilateral actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the case highlights a deeper issue\u2014how fathers, even when they are actively raising the child and providing stability, are often viewed with suspicion in custody disputes. The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Custody litigation can never be permitted to become a strategic weapon in matrimonial warfare.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While this principle is correct, it raises concern that fathers who step up to take responsibility are sometimes accused of wrongdoing simply for ensuring the child\u2019s welfare<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “At any stretch of imagination, Bangalore cannot be the ordinary residence of the boy and the Family Court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This finding overlooks the ground reality that the child had been living in India with the father for years, studying, settling, and building his life here<\/strong>. It brings into question whether the concept of \u201cordinary residence\u201d is being interpreted in a way that disregards the father\u2019s role as a primary caregiver.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a strong remark, the Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “This is nothing but blackmailing the mother to come in terms with the expectations of the father.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This judgment raises serious concerns. The Court appears to have overlooked key facts\u2014that the child was admitted to school in India, was settled here, and, most importantly, the child\u2019s initial stay in India was with the mother\u2019s consent. Despite this, the father\u2019s role as a primary caregiver was not given due weight.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While the Court rightly emphasized the mother\u2019s career rights, it failed to equally recognize the sacrifices made by the father<\/strong>, who was raising the child and providing day-to-day stability. This creates an impression that fathers are often seen with suspicion, even when acting in the child\u2019s interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n