Child's Welfare Paramount, Not Foreign Court Orders: Delhi High Court Dismisses Cross-Custody Pleas

The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross petitions filed by estranged parents seeking custody of their US-born daughter, reiterating that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and that orders of foreign courts are not conclusive.A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the Court while giving adequate importance, acknowledgment and respect to the orders passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction albeit of a foreign country, at the same time, gives paramountcy to the welfare of the child.”It added that questions relating to custody require a detailed inquiry which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.The dispute between the couple arose after the mother brought the child to India in June 2022. A US court subsequently granted sole custody to the father, directing the return of the child.The mother approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against the US court's orders, while the father filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the child's custody.The High Court noted that although the child had been brought to India after the US court's custody order, a significant period had elapsed during which the child had settled in India and was pursuing her education here.In this backdrop it observed, “Merely because the child by birth is a citizen of USA or had stayed there for a few years as her parents were there, cannot alone be the determinative factor for determining the welfare of the child. Similarly, the order of the Superior Court, though entitled to all due respect, cannot be the sole determinative factor for determining the welfare of the child, especially when a long period has since passed and the child has gained roots in India.”The Court further observed that determining the child's best interests would require a detailed examination, including interacting with the child—an exercise not suited to writ proceedings.As such, the Court refrained from directing the child's return and dismissed both petitions, leaving it open to the parties to seek appropriate remedies.Appearance: Mr.Jai Anant Dehadrai, Ms.Srutee Priyadarshini, Ms.Bhavya Jain, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr.Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Arkaprava Dass, Adv. for R-2.Case title: Aman Kathpal v. UoICitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 357Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 2049/2022Click here to read order

Child's Welfare Paramount, Not Foreign Court Orders: Delhi High Court Dismisses Cross-Custody Pleas

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags