NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through its Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia<\/strong> and Justice Madhu Jain<\/strong>, modified a Family Court order in a child custody dispute in which the father had earlier been permitted to bring the minor child from the USA to India during summer vacation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mother challenged this before the High Court. She said she was not stopping the father from meeting the child. Her concern was that the child\u2019s immigration status in the USA was linked to her own visa status, which was under transition after her selection under the H-1B FY 2027 CAP Programme.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n She submitted that if the child left the USA during this sensitive visa process, his re-entry could become difficult. She also placed the child\u2019s tourist visa, F-2 visa and an opinion from a USA immigration attorney<\/strong> before the Court. The child\u2019s new school session was also to begin on 15.07.2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The father opposed the appeal. He argued that the child had a valid B-1\/B-2 tourist visa till 31.07.2029<\/strong> and could return to the USA on that basis. He also submitted that the mother\u2019s immigration position and \u201cOPT\u201d status would protect the child\u2019s dependent visa status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court found that the Family Court had not properly considered the immigration concerns. The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The Impugned Order does not adequately appreciate the immigration-related concerns raised by the Appellant while holding that such objections do not justify denial of access to the Respondent.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the High Court also recognised the importance of the father-child relationship<\/strong>. The Court noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The pendency of such processes cannot indefinitely suspend the father-child relationship.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n However, the High Court said that the child\u2019s welfare could not be put at risk. The Court found that the Family Court had-<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Overlooked the serious concerns arising from the change in the Appellant\u2019s immigration status and the consequential impact on the minor child\u2019s residence and immigration status in the USA.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also gave weight to the USA immigration attorney\u2019s opinion. It clarified that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Although the opinion of the attorney placed on record is not binding on this Court, the opinion expressed on affidavit by a qualified immigration attorney may be treated as a statement of fact having persuasive value.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court then held that if the child was taken to India and later faced difficulty in returning to the USA, it would not be in his welfare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the father had already travelled to the USA on 12.06.2026, the Court said he could spend summer vacation with the child there itself<\/strong>. The child would remain with the father in the USA during vacation, but would not be brought to India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The father had argued that he had to return to work on 22.06.2026. The Court did not accept this as a reason to disturb the child\u2019s immigration position. It observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is always possible for the Respondent to give priority to the minor child by extending his stay in the USA by working remotely from there.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Delhi High Court modified the Family Court order and directed that the minor child shall remain with the father in the USA during the vacation period, without being brought to India. The father was directed to return the child to the mother in the USA three days before the reopening of school on 15.07.2026.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision \/ Concept<\/strong><\/td> Role In This Case<\/strong><\/td> Simple Meaning<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 19, Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Appeal filed under this section.<\/td> Used to challenge Family Court orders before High Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 26, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Father\u2019s application was under this section.<\/td> Deals with custody, education and maintenance of minor children.<\/td><\/tr> HMA No. 628\/2025<\/strong><\/td> Main Family Court case.<\/td> Matrimonial case where child custody issue arose.<\/td><\/tr> F-1 \/ F-2 Visa Status<\/strong><\/td> Mother raised child\u2019s visa risk.<\/td> Child\u2019s USA stay was linked to mother\u2019s visa status.<\/td><\/tr> Form I-20<\/strong><\/td> Travel document issue raised.<\/td> Important document for F-1\/F-2 visa travel.<\/td><\/tr> H-1B FY 2027 CAP Programme<\/strong><\/td> Mother\u2019s visa was in transition.<\/td> Her changing status could affect the child\u2019s status.<\/td><\/tr> B-1\/B-2 Tourist Visa<\/strong><\/td> Father relied on this visa.<\/td> He said child could re-enter USA on tourist visa.<\/td><\/tr> OPT<\/strong><\/td> Father relied on mother\u2019s OPT status.<\/td> Work permission linked to student status in USA.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n