MP High Court Refuses To Enforce US Court Custody Order; Says Child's Welfare Prevails Over Foreign Decree

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to enforce an order passed by a Texas Court granting custody of two minor children to their father, holding that the welfare of the children is paramount and outweighs the binding force of a foreign decree. 

The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed, 

"In relation to the impact of an order of a Foreign Court relating to interest, it is well settled that the same is a relevant factor, however, the same is not conclusive. The doctrine of Comity of Courts cannot overwrite the paramount consideration of the welfare of the children. The Indian Court is not bound to mechanically enforce a foreign interest order, if such enforcement would be contrary to the child's welfare". 

The father filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of his children based on the order passed by a Texas Court. The father relied on the order of April 14, 2025, which appointed him as the sole managing conservator of the children and granted him the right to determine their residence. 

 The High Court noted that the foreign custody orders are not automatically enforceable in India, especially in matters involving children. The bench reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that comity of courts is an important factor, but does not supersede the welfare of the children. 

Regarding the maintainability of habeas corpus, the court held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters, particularly in exceptional cases where the custody is alleged to be unlawful. 

The Court noted that the couple had been residing in the USA since 2017, and later in August 2024, the mother travelled to India with the children for a temporary visit, but did not return. The father thus approached the court alleging wrongful restraint against the mother, and subsequently, the said foreign decree was passed. 

The Court spoke with the children in their chambers, noting that they were well settled in India and had expressed an emotional attachment to their mother. The bench also observed that there was no allegation that they were not properly cared for. 

Therefore, the court decided not to enforce the foreign decree, but also did not adjudicate on the merits of permanent custody of the children. Thus, the petition was dismissed. 

Case Title: Ankur Joshi v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-23561-2025]

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with Advocates Harshit Anand, Priyal Jain and Piyush Parashar

For Respondent no 3 (Wife): Advocates Sunil Ramchandani and Praveen Yogi

For State: Additional Advocate General Rahul Sethi

Click here to read/download the Order