Supreme Court affirms interim custody with father in cross‑jurisdictional child custody dispute
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard an appeal against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that had allowed a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and directed interim custody of a five‑year‑old boy to be handed to his father pending further proceedings. The challenge arose from prolonged cross‑jurisdictional litigation between parents residing in the United Kingdom and India and collateral proceedings in the UK Family Court.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's conclusion that the best interests of the child warranted interim custody with the father. The judges recorded concern at the mother’s conduct in failing to disclose that the younger child had remained in India and noted competing and prolonged litigation in different forums. The Court stressed the primacy of the child's welfare over parental jurisdictional disputes and directed immediate handover of the child to the father, with detailed interim contact and monitoring arrangements. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further issued specific directions on visitation, restrictions on foreign travel, and oversight by juvenile and child‑welfare authorities.
Background
The dispute arose after the mother travelled to the UK on 08.05.2021 with the elder child and, according to the father, left the younger child with maternal grandparents in Sonipat without informing him. The father filed an application in the UK High Court seeking return and other orders; the UK Family Division issued location and contact orders and later, after hearing, found that the mother had not disclosed that Master K remained in India, observing that “the mother lured the court into error by failing to disclose that she had only removed Miss N to the UK and that Master K remained in India.” The UK court concluded that Miss N had become habitually resident in the UK but noted that Master K had spent most of his life in India and could not be said to be habitually resident in the UK.
Meanwhile the father filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking production and custody of the younger child. The High Court directed police inquiries, interim safeguards including retention of the child’s passport, and ultimately ordered that custody be handed to the father on 06.12.2021, observing that the child’s welfare would be served by custody with the petitioner, who had family support in India. The High Court’s order was stayed conditionally by this Court pending appeal.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed domestic precedents emphasising that in custody disputes the “paramount consideration” was the welfare of the child, and referred to prior rulings balancing comity with the child's best interests. The Court recorded the father’s professional and residential stability and the mother’s conduct in leaving the child with grandparents without disclosure, and concluded that interim custody with the father was appropriate pending formal guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Court directed the appellant to hand over custody within fifteen days of upload, ordered contact rights for the mother and maternal grandparents, barred removal of the child from India without High Court leave, and authorised local juvenile and child‑welfare authorities to monitor the child’s wellbeing.
Case No.: 2025 INSC 1123 Case Title: Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Malhotra (counsel for petitioner); Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana (appeared on behalf of State) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sandhu (counsel for respondents); other appearances recorded in the record as per judgment