SC directs mother to return US-born daughter to America, says child’s welfare is paramount
Mangalore Today News Network
New Delhi, Oct 24, 2026: The Supreme Court has directed a mother to take her four-year-old US citizen daughter back to the United States, observing that the child’s welfare would be better served by growing up and receiving education there rather than remaining in India.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had allowed the child to remain with her mother in India. Taking note of a California court order restraining the mother from removing the child from its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court directed her to return to the US with the girl on or before December 31, 2026.
The court also granted interim custody of the child to her father, a US citizen, and observed that the mother should not be allowed to benefit from her own wrongful conduct.
The dispute arose after the mother, a doctor holding a US Green Card, left California for India with the child in September 2022, allegedly in violation of orders passed by the Superior Court of California. Those orders prohibited either parent from removing the child from the court’s jurisdiction without the other parent’s written consent or a court order.
The California court subsequently directed the mother to return the child to the father’s custody.
The father then approached the Karnataka High Court by filing a habeas corpus petition, seeking the child’s return. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mother’s custody was not illegal and that the child’s best interests would be served by remaining with her. It also took note of the delay of eight months in filing the petition and the fact that the girl was attending school in Jamshedpur.
Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a habeas corpus petition is maintainable in custody disputes between parents. It clarified that the primary consideration in such cases is the child’s welfare, rather than merely the legality of the custody.
The bench said foreign court orders deserve due consideration under the principle of comity of courts, but cannot be enforced mechanically. Indian courts must independently assess the child’s best interests before deciding custody matters.
The court noted that the couple had married and established their matrimonial home in the United States, and that the divorce and custody proceedings there had been initiated by the mother. It found no material on record to suggest that the child would be harmed in her father’s care or that growing up in the US would be contrary to her interests.
The bench also observed that, as a US citizen, the child was entitled to the benefits of that citizenship and should continue her life in the United States.
It further held that a parent who removes or retains a child in violation of a competent foreign court’s order should ordinarily not be permitted to benefit from such conduct. However, the court clarified that this principle does not override the paramount importance of the child’s welfare and is relevant when competing considerations are evenly balanced.
As part of the directions, the father has been ordered to provide accommodation, pay monthly financial assistance of USD 3,200 and ensure appropriate care for both the child and the mother. He must also deposit security of ₹1 crore with the Supreme Court Registry within two weeks.
The bench clarified that its observations would not influence the pending custody and divorce proceedings in the United States.
The matter has been listed for January 5, 2027, to monitor compliance with the directions. The Supreme Court also dismissed the mother’s separate challenge to a Jharkhand High Court order rejecting her custody petition under the Guardians and Wards Act.