A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi<\/strong> expressed strong displeasure at the mother\u2019s conduct, observing that she had no intention to let the child meet his father or obey court orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe judicial system in India as well as the UK had been taken for a ride by the mother for the reasons known best to her. Be that as it may, the entire whirlpool of litigation has been set into motion by the parents, wherein the children are being pulled in and at this stage, we are concerned with the welfare of the child and certainly, in our view, such conduct is clearly not in favour of the welfare,\u2019\u2019 the bench said.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court ordered that custody of the child be handed to the father within 15 days from the wife\u2019s parents in Sonipat. The mother, currently in the UK, was permitted video call interaction with her son, and the maternal grandparents were granted visitation rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Having reviewed the facts, the Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are constrained to observe that the present case reflects a deep-rooted conflict between the mother and father, arising from their divergent intentions regarding staying together and raising their children in India. This discord has not only strained their marital relationship but has also adversely impacted their children.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The bench further noted that the mother\u2019s act of leaving the child with her parents came to light only after the father filed a habeas corpus petition, which led to interim custody being given to him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges stated that since the mother is living in London with the daughter while the son is with the grandparents, despite the father being financially stable and available, the child\u2019s welfare would be best served by staying with his father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also highlighted the father\u2019s qualifications and stable background. He holds a Master\u2019s degree in Computer Science and a post-graduate diploma in Business Administration, having worked in Singapore, the UK, and the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSimilarly, looking to other factors, his earning is sufficient, and he is owner of residential flat in Sector-70, Noida and currently residing there with his mother and younger sister. In our considered opinion, Noida is more suitably located than Sonipat, having better educational institutes, therefore, in our view, welfare of the child would be served if the interim custody of the child is given to the father who is also the natural guardian,\u201d the bench said.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The bench directed that either parent must file appropriate proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 within one month before the competent court. Since the child was born in the UK, the issue of citizenship would depend on the outcome of those proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple had married on November 29, 2010, and have two children\u2014a daughter and a son. The father alleged that his wife left India on May 8, 2021, with both children and did not return. On June 3, 2021, he filed a police complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He then approached the UK High Court and filed a divorce petition in Noida. The UK court had earlier directed the mother to allow video calls between the father and children, but the mother failed to comply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Suspecting that the son was not in the UK, the father filed a habeas corpus petition in India in 2021. On visiting the maternal grandparents\u2019 house in Sonipat, he discovered his son there. However, he was attacked and injured during the visit. Following this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered custody of the child to the father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, the UK Family Court granted a divorce decree to the mother on December 21, 2021, which the father has challenged in appeal. Conversely, the Family Court at Jind, Haryana, on September 20, 2022, granted an ex parte divorce decree to the father, which the mother has challenged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UK High Court also recorded that the mother played a \u201ccrude subterfuge\u201d by not revealing that the son was actually in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later, on May 8, 2024, the Supreme Court interacted with the child in chambers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUpon interaction and looking to his age, which was approximately 5 years, we found that Master K was not in a position to substantially express anything for anyone,\u201d the bench observed.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The apex court also remarked that both parents are pursuing divorces in different countries while refusing to recognise decrees passed outside their preferred jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt appears that both parties wish to obtain divorce only from the court of the jurisdiction in which they currently reside. This is not merely a clash of egos, but prima-facie, reflects a concerning mindset that may ultimately come at the cost of the welfare of the minor children,\u201d the bench said.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court emphasised that it was the mother\u2019s duty to inform the father about the child\u2019s location and to disclose the child\u2019s whereabouts to the UK High Court, but she failed to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n Her disclosure came only after the father had filed applications before both the UK High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the return of his children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Final Directions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Supreme](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Supreme-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nExplanatory Table of Laws & Legal Sections Referred<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/th> Provision Summary<\/th> Context in This Case<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Habeas Corpus (Article 32 \/ 226 of Constitution)<\/td> Remedy to produce a person held unlawfully in custody.<\/td> Father filed habeas corpus in Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking production of minor son, alleging illegal custody by maternal grandparents.<\/td><\/tr> Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/td> Restitution of conjugal rights \u2013 a spouse can seek order to live together again.<\/td> Father had filed a petition under this section before the Family Court, Jind.<\/td><\/tr> Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/a><\/td> Governs appointment and rights of guardians for minors.<\/td> SC directed both parents to file proceedings under this Act for permanent custody and guardianship of the minor.<\/td><\/tr> Parens Patriae Principle<\/td> The State (and Courts) act as guardian for those unable to protect themselves.<\/td> Cited by Supreme Court to emphasize welfare of child as paramount consideration.<\/td><\/tr> Doctrine of Comity of Courts<\/td> Respect for jurisdiction and judgments of foreign courts.<\/td> Discussed due to conflicting Indian and UK custody\/divorce orders.<\/td><\/tr> Article 21 of the Constitution<\/a> (Implicit) <\/td> Protection of life and personal liberty.<\/td> Implied in the child\u2019s right to live with safety, security, and dignity.<\/td><\/tr> Precedents Cited<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr> Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 8 SCC 454<\/td> Child welfare overrides foreign court orders.<\/td> Used to justify prioritizing child\u2019s welfare over UK orders.<\/td><\/tr> Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali (2019) 7 SCC 311<\/td> Best interest of child is paramount in cross-border custody cases.<\/td> Relied on by SC to assess welfare of minor.<\/td><\/tr> Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 12 SCC 472<\/td> Welfare of child supersedes parental legal rights.<\/td> Cited to emphasize child-centric approach.<\/td><\/tr> Neethu B. v. Rajesh Kumar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1435)*<\/td> Courts may alter custody to serve welfare and mental health of the child.<\/td> Quoted by SC to reaffirm evolving child-welfare standards.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
\n