The Telangana High Court has observed that a father cannot be deprived of a child's custody as a matter of course unless he is shown to be an unsuitable or undeserving parent.

In doing so the court directed the return of a four-year-old girl to the United States, where her parents' custody dispute was already before a court.

A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara said the child needed the care and affection of both parents. It held that the mother's removal of the child to India could not shift the dispute away from the US court, which had already passed custody orders.

The Bench observed:

“It may be stated that judicial sympathy mostly veers towards the mother in matters involving custody of children. This may be a combination of an instinctive and emotional response where Courts often overlook the contribution of a father to the child's welfare. The father's contribution extends far beyond providing mere financial support; fathers are an indivisible part of the wholeness and wholesomeness of family life. Adopting a partisan approach against the father, especially where the facts do not portray him as an unsuitable or undeserving parent, results in grave injustice.”

The father claimed that the child was born in the US and had spent most of her life in Oregon. Her father filed legal separation proceedings there in February 2025. An Oregon court restrained both parents from changing the child's usual residence, and they later agreed to a temporary parenting plan.

It was alleged that the mother brought the child to Hyderabad three days after agreeing to that plan. The Oregon court subsequently granted the father sole temporary custody. The mother initiated divorce and custody proceedings in Hyderabad, while the father filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the child's return to the US.

The father's counsel submitted that the mother had removed the child in breach of the Oregon court's orders and denied him the parenting access agreed before that court. Meanwhile the counsel appearing for the mother, referred to her proceedings in India and submitted that the father was interacting with the child through video calls.

The issue before the High Court was whether it should decide custody afresh or direct the child's return so that the Oregon court could continue hearing the dispute.

The Bench noted that the mother had participated in the US proceedings and agreed to the parenting plan before leaving with the child. She had neither challenged the US court's jurisdiction nor obtained permission to take the child out of Oregon. Her subsequent proceedings in Hyderabad did not displace that court's earlier jurisdiction.

Considering the child's welfare, the Bench noted her US citizenship and long residence in Oregon. It rejected the suggestion that the father's parental role could be discounted because of the parents' matrimonial dispute.

Having regard to all the compelling factors, namely, (i) the welfare and best interests of the detenue, (ii) the orders passed by the competent US Court, (iii) the principle of Comity of Courts, (iv) the conduct of the respondent No.4 in removing the child from USA in violation of Court orders and (v) the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the court passed the following directions:

(1) The mother shall return the detenue to USA and accompany the detenue to USA for that purpose. She shall comply with the orders passed by the US Court including that of 18.04.2025 and 17.11.2025.

(2) The father shall pay for the travel expenses of the mother and the detenue for their journey from Hyderabad, India to Oregon, USA. The petitioner shall also pay for the return travel of the mother from Oregon, USA to Hyderabad, India. 

(3) The petitioner shall arrange for the accommodation for the mother, which should be comfortable and of the same standard as that which she was accustomed to while she was in the USA. The petitioner shall also pay for the travel, food, and other expenses of the mother while she is in the USA and till the she decides to return to India, if and when that happens. Needless to say, the decision as to whether the mother wishes to live in the USA or return to India, is entirely hers.

(4) In case the mother wishes to stay in her matrimonial home, the petitioner shall make alternate arrangements to move to a different accommodation during the the mother's stay in the USA. This arrangement shall continue for such duration as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

(5) The petitioner shall not initiate any penal action against the mother in the USA with regard to violation of Court orders or otherwise. This should be treated as a pre-condition for the mother's appearance before the competent Courts in the USA.

If the mother chooses not to travel, she must hand over the child to the father or a close family member for her return. In that event, she will have daily and weekend video access to the child.

The directions take effect from October 1, 2026.

The plea was disposed of.

Case Title: X v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 29562 of 2025

Appearance: S. Raghuram, representing K. Sridevi, for the petitioner; T. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; P. Rama Sharana Sharma, representing Chetluru Sreenivas, for respondent No. 4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order