The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a United States-based father seeking custody of his minor daughter with autism, ruling that the child’s welfare and personal preference to remain with her mother take precedence over foreign court orders.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Girmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi stated in a July 30 order that custody of a minor with her biological mother is presumed to be lawful. The bench observed that foreign custody rulings serve merely as one factor in determining child custody, and Indian courts must prioritize the overall interests of the minor rather than relying strictly on foreign decrees.
Child Expresses Preference to Remain in India
The decision noted that the child had explicitly expressed her desire to stay with her mother during proceedings before a family court in Palampur. The legal dispute stems from a couple who married in Delhi in 2008, subsequently relocated to the United States, and divorced in 2023.
Following the divorce, the mother moved to Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, with the child in September 2023. The father later obtained a contempt ruling from a US family court granting him sole custody and permission to travel to India to claim the child, finding the mother in contempt for relocating without securing a reciprocal mirror judgment from an Indian court.
Legal Arguments and Jurisdictional Claims
Representing the father, advocates Vihaan Kumar and Mukesh Sharma contended that the mother’s relocation without an Indian mirror order made her custody unlawful. They argued that because the child holds US citizenship, jurisdiction remains with American courts, making the local family court in Palampur unauthorized to handle the dispute.
Countering these assertions, senior advocate Rajnish Maniktala and advocate Dinkar Bhaskar, appearing for the mother, stated that she had informed the father prior to her departure and had taken steps toward obtaining a mirror judgment in India. The defense highlighted that the child has lived and attended school in India since 2023, with guardianship proceedings active in the Palampur family court, rendering the habeas corpus petition unmaintainable.
In its final determination, the High Court affirmed that foreign custody directives do not bind Indian courts when evaluating a minor’s welfare, formally rejecting the father’s application.
