The Delhi High Court has modified a Family Court order permitting a minor child residing in the United States to be brought to India for summer visitation, holding that the child's welfare would be better served if the father exercised his visitation rights in the US itself in view of uncertainties surrounding the child's immigration status.

The division bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain observed that if the child travelled to India and subsequently faced immigration-related complications in returning to the US, it would not be conducive to the child's welfare and best interests.

“Respondent shall be able to have access to the minor child while he remains in the USA, and he may continue to have custody of the child during the summer vacation without bringing the minor child to India,” the Court thus ordered.

The appeal arose from a Family Court order allowing the respondent-father to bring the minor child from the US to India during the summer vacation.

The mother challenged the order, contending that the child was residing in the US on an F-2 dependent visa linked to her immigration status, which was undergoing transition following her selection under the H-1B FY 2027 CAP Programme.

She argued that international travel during the ongoing visa transition could adversely affect the child's immigration status and ability to re-enter the US.

The father on the other hand, argued that the child also possessed a valid multiple-entry B-1/B-2 tourist visa, which would enable him to re-enter the US even if the F-2 visa ceased to be valid.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to adequately appreciate the immigration-related concerns raised by the mother.

The Court noted that the material on record indicated that the child's immigration status was linked to that of the mother, whose visa status was presently in transition following the completion of her academic programme and commencement of employment in the US.

The Bench observed that while the opinion of the US immigration attorney was not binding, it had persuasive value.

It further held that if the child travelled to India and was thereafter unable to return to the US because of immigration-related complications, such an outcome would not be in the child's best interests.

As such, the Court modified the Family Court's order and directed that the minor child would remain with the father in the US during the summer vacation.

Appearance: For the Appellant : Ms. Priya Hingorani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aditi Ladda, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Somnath Bharti and Ms. Kashish Aggarwal, Advocates.

Case title: S v. S

Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026

Click here to read order