{"id":720,"date":"2025-10-15T11:16:25","date_gmt":"2025-10-15T05:46:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=720"},"modified":"2025-10-15T11:03:11","modified_gmt":"2025-10-15T05:33:11","slug":"mother-to-return-minor-child-to-his-father","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/mother-to-return-minor-child-to-his-father\/","title":{"rendered":"Forceful Custody Can\u2019t Redefine A Child\u2019s Home: Delhi High Court Orders Mother To Return Minor Child To His Father In USA"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Delhi High Court ruled that a parent cannot claim Delhi as a child\u2019s \u201cordinary residence\u201d after forcibly bringing the child from abroad. The Court ordered the mother to return the U.S.-born minor child to Arizona, reaffirming that custody must follow the child\u2019s true home and welfare.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court<\/strong>, in Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu, made it clear that forcefully bringing a minor child to India from abroad cannot change their \u201cordinary residence\u201d<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar<\/strong> delivered this significant judgment on 28 May 2025<\/strong>, directing the mother to return the U.S.-born child to Arizona, USA<\/strong>, where both parents were settled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court stated \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cFor invoking the jurisdiction of the Family Court under the G&W Act, it has to be shown that the minor \u2018ordinarily resides\u2019 within its jurisdiction. The forceful removal of a minor child from his original place of residence and shifting him to a new residence will not make him an ordinary resident of the new place.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sunaina Rao Kommineni and Abhiram Balusu were married in 2013 in Vijayawada and later settled in Arizona, USA. Their son was born there in 2017, making him an American citizen. The couple came to India in November 2022 for a short vacation and were to return to the USA in January 2023. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, upon landing in Delhi, the wife took the child away from the husband with airport security\u2019s help and stayed back in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, she filed a series of cases in Delhi, including under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/strong> and a Guardianship Petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/strong>. The husband approached the Arizona Superior Court<\/strong>, which granted him custody and directed the wife to return the child to the USA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delhi High Court\u2019s Observations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court noted that both parents were Green Card holders<\/strong>, settled permanently in the USA, and the child had been living and schooling there until the mother\u2019s unilateral act of removal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench stressed that the welfare of the child is paramount<\/strong> and cannot be determined by either parent\u2019s wishes. It held that the child\u2019s home, education, citizenship, and comfort<\/strong> were rooted in the USA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment explained that \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe forceful removal of a minor child from his original place of residence and shifting him to a new residence will not make him an ordinary resident of the new place.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court further observed that \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cA residence by compulsion, howsoever long, cannot be treated as a place of ordinary residence. Where the child is removed by mischief to an interim location, the place of his\/her original residence would alone have jurisdiction.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It also underlined that even temporary residence cannot be illegal or forced<\/strong>, and that a parent\u2019s unilateral decision cannot determine jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s Directions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench ruled in favour of the father and issued detailed directions for compliance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The mother must return to Arizona, USA, along with the minor child on or before 1 July 2025.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. She must inform the father of her decision by 15 June 2025.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. If she agrees to return, the husband will bear all travel and living expenses, allow her to stay in their previous residence, and pay USD 2000 per month as maintenance for her and the child.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. If the wife refuses to return, she must hand over the child\u2019s custody to the father in the Delhi High Court on 2 July 2025.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. The police will assist the father in retrieving the child if required.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. The mother must surrender the child\u2019s U.S. passport and complete withdrawal formalities from the Delhi school.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. The father will re-admit the child in the U.S. school to ensure continuity in education.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Legal Significance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Court drew upon Supreme Court precedents like Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, which emphasize that the child\u2019s best interest lies in stability, not jurisdictional manipulation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The ruling reinforces the principle that a foreign-born child\u2019s habitual residence cannot be altered by one parent\u2019s unilateral action<\/strong>, especially when a competent foreign court has already ruled on custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This judgment sends a strong message that Indian courts will not encourage international child custody violations<\/strong> disguised as relocation or \u201cprotection.\u201d The child\u2019s habitual home and welfare<\/strong> will take precedence over parental disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n

    \n
    \"Delhi<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    As the Court concluded,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cSuch forceful removal\/detention, even by a parent, at a place that is not the natural habitation of the minor child, would not render such other place the ordinary place of residence of the minor child.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Law \/ Statute<\/th>Section(s)<\/th>Purpose \/ Context in the Case<\/th>Court\u2019s Observation \/ Relevance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/strong><\/td>Sections 7, 8, 9, 25<\/strong><\/td>The wife filed a Guardianship Petition under these sections before the Family Court seeking custody of the child.<\/td>The Court held that under Section 9<\/strong>, jurisdiction arises only where the minor ordinarily resides. Forceful removal of the child to Delhi does not make Delhi the child\u2019s ordinary residence.<\/td><\/tr>
    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/strong><\/td>Order VII Rule 11<\/strong><\/td>Husband sought rejection of the Guardianship Petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.<\/td>Family Court rightly rejected the petition under this provision, as the cause of action was not within Delhi.<\/td><\/tr>
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Section 12<\/strong><\/td>Wife had filed a domestic violence complaint in Delhi, claiming residence there.<\/td>Delhi HC observed that her residence claim for DV purposes cannot extend to child custody jurisdiction under G&W Act.<\/td><\/tr>
    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Section 13(1)(ia)<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Wife filed a divorce petition citing cruelty.<\/td>Mentioned in factual background; not directly relevant to custody ruling.<\/td><\/tr>
    Indian Constitution \u2013 Article 226<\/strong><\/td>\u2014<\/td>Husband filed Writ of Habeas Corpus<\/strong> seeking return of minor.<\/td>Court held that writ is maintainable even when the other parent detains the child unlawfully.<\/td><\/tr>
    Superior Court of Arizona (U.S. Jurisdiction)<\/strong><\/td>\u2014<\/td>Passed custody orders recognizing the father as the primary residential parent.<\/td>Delhi HC upheld this, respecting comity of courts and the child\u2019s habitual residence.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n