Supreme Court of India
KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA & ORS.versusSANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1123
- Decided
- 16 September 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K MAHESHWARI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in granting interim custody of the minor son to the father and that no interference was warranted.
Summary
The father filed a habeas corpus petition after the mother left India with their daughter and allegedly left their five‑year‑old son with the maternal grandparents without informing him, violating UK High Court video‑call orders. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana directed that interim custody of the son be handed over to the father, a decision the mother and her relatives appealed. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's direction warranted interference, considering the best‑interest test under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the conduct of the mother in concealing the child's whereabouts. Relying on the principle that child welfare supersedes parental rights and on precedents emphasizing the natural guardian’s fitness, the Court held that the High Court was correct in granting interim custody to the father. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the father was ordered to take custody of the child, with further procedural directions for future custody proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's direction to hand over interim custody of the minor son to the father should be interfered with
- Whether the father, as natural guardian, is fit to have interim custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
- Whether the best‑interest of the child test requires custody to remain with the father pending final determination
- Jurisdictional interplay between Indian courts and foreign (UK) family court orders
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the directions issued by the High Court that the interim custody of the minor son aged five years be handed over to the father from the custody of the maternal grandfather warrants interference. Headnotes† Custody – Child custody – – Strained marital relationship of the parents – Mother left India for UK with both the children-minor daughter and son, allegedly without the father’s knowledge or consent – Father initiated proceedings in UK High Court seeking return of the children – UK Court
Subjects
Custody of the minor sonCustodyWelfare of the minor childrenStrained marital relationshipUK High CourtFacilitate video callsMaternal grandfatherWrit of habeas corpusInterim custodyDispleasure expressed over the conduct of the motherDeprecationJudicial system in IndiaFather, natural guardian
Judgment
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1085 : 2025 INSC 1123
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors.
v.
Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4052 of 2025)
16 September 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the directions issued by the High Court that
the interim custody of the minor son aged five years be handed
over to the father from the custody of the maternal grandfather
warrants interference.
Headnotes†
Custody – Child custody – Welfare of the minor children –
Strained marital relationship of the parents – Mother left India
for UK with both the children-minor daughter and son, allegedly
without the father’s knowledge or consent – Father initiated
proceedings in UK High Court seeking return of the children –
UK Court ordered the mother to facilitate video calls between
the father and the children, however, during these calls, son
was made unavailable – Later father got to know that his son
was in India with his maternal grandfather – Writ of habeas
corpus by the father, wherein the interim custody of the son
was directed to be handed over to the father – Interference:
Held: Not called for – Welfare and best interest of the child would
be served if he would continue with the father, as such the High
Court justified in granting the interim custody of minor son to the
father – Judgment of the UK High Court reveals that when the
statement of the minor daughter was taken, the reflection of hate
against father cannot been ruled out – While leaving the son in
India, it was mother’s primary duty to inform the father, which was
not discharged, as also she did not disclose to UK High Court in the
proceedings initiated by father that the son was not with her – Due
to such conduct, the father was deprived of having virtual meetings
* Author
1086 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with the son despite orders from UK High Court and ultimately had
to file the habeas corpus petition when the suspicion brewed –
Displeasure is expressed over the conduct of the mother which is
clearly not in favour of the welfare of the the son and the manner
in which the son was left by her at Sonipat with the grandparents
and the same is deprecated – Judicial system in India as well as
UK had been taken for a ride by the mother for the reasons known
best to her – Factum of leaving the child with the grandparents
could only be unveiled when the proceedings were set in motion
on filing of the writ of habeas corpus, wherein the interim custody
of the child had been directed to be handed over to the father
looking to the best interest of the child – In such circumstances,
where the mother is staying in London with her daughter and son
is staying with grandparents, despite the availability of father, who
has sufficient means of sustenance to undertake the well-being of
the child, the best interest of the son needs to be ascertained –
Father is residing in Noida which is more suitably located than
Sonipat, having better educational institutes, thus, welfare of the
son, would be served if the interim custody of the child is given
to the father who is also the natural guardian, subject to further
orders by the competent Court of jurisdiction – Both the parties to
file appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890, before the competent Court. [Paras 19-22]
Case Law Cited
Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali [2019] 5 SCR 240 : (2019) 7
SCC 311; Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others [2022] 5 SCR 232 : (2023) 12 SCC 472; Neethu B. v.
Rajesh Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1435 – referred to.
List of Acts
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
List of Keywords
Custody of the minor son; Custody; Welfare of the minor children;
Strained marital relationship; UK High Court; Facilitate video calls;
Maternal grandfather; Writ of habeas corpus; Interim custody;
Displeasure expressed over the conduct of the mother; Deprecation;
Judicial system in India; Father, natural guardian.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1087
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 4052 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRWP NO. 8954 of 2021.
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 325 of 2022 In Special Leave Petition
(Crl) No. 9497 of 2021, Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 124-125 of
2024 In Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 9497 of 2021 and SLP
(Crl) No. 17530 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Shadan Farasat, D. N. Goburdhan, Sr. Advs., Siddhant Sharma,
Harshit Anand, Sanveer Mehlwal, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal,
Govind Bali, Parth Agarwal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
D.N. Goburdhan, Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advs., Rohan K, Ms. N.
Annapoorani, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Drishti
Saraf, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal, Siddhant Sharma, Harshit
Anand.
Petitioner in person
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 4052 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 9497
of 2021)
1. Leave granted.
2. In an ongoing prolonged discord of ties between husband – Sandeep
Kumar @ Sandeep Chugh (hereinafter referred as ‘father’) and wife –
Latika Arora @ Latika Chugh (hereinafter referred as ‘mother’) who
got married on 29.11.2010, leading to further dispute on visitation over
their two children, minor daughter ‘Miss N’ (currently staying with
1088 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
mother in England and Wales) and minor son ‘Master K’ (currently
staying with grandfather – appellant No. 1), the writ petition seeking
writ in the nature of habeas corpus came to be filed by father on
an unhealthy note before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh alleging illegal custody of children with appellants.
3. The case of the father in brief is that, the mother left India for United
Kingdom on 08.05.2021 with both the children without informing him
and his consent. The father being clueless about the whereabouts of
his children, made an attempt to figure out the same through child
helpline. Through correspondence and enquiry dated 01.06.2021,
the child helpline informed that his children are not in India. It was
further informed that as per his children and statement of wife, they
are safe, secure and the wife is doing job over there. The said
information was furnished by the child helpline indicating that the
case is already pending in the Court. Followed thereafter, the father
on 03.06.2021 lodged a formal complaint before the Police to know
the exact whereabouts of his children.
4. Meanwhile, the mother filed an application for non-molestation and
occupation order against father in UK on 07.06.2021. The father also
filed a divorce petition on 05.07.2021 in Noida and simultaneously,
moved an application invoking inherent jurisdiction of the UK High
Court of Justice, Family Division (in short “UK High Court”), in
relation to children, contending that the mother wrongly removed
the children from India without his knowledge and consent. It was
also asserted that the children are habitual residents of India and
accordingly, the father sought their summary return to India with a
further prayer to make children ward of the Court meanwhile. He
further sought range of prohibitory step orders, including location of
the children and passport.
5. The above petition came for hearing without notice on 13.07.2021
before Mrs. Justice Judd, who passed a location order against the
mother. In compliance, the Tipstaff located mother and Miss N and
later their passport and travel documents were seized. The mother
was served with the notice of proceedings on 15.07.2021. The next
hearing took place on 26.07.2021 before Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot,
who inter-alia passed the following directions –
(a) Mother is prevented from changing the location of the children
without informing the father’s solicitor 7 days in advance and
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1089
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
from taking the children outside the jurisdiction of England and
Wales pending the conclusion of proceedings;
(b) Mother to make available the children to spend time with the
Father by way of video and/or telephone calls every Monday,
Wednesday and Friday at 18:00 GMT;
(c) Mother is prohibited from applying for a British passport or any
other passport for the children pending the conclusion of the
proceedings, without the consent of the Father.
6. Following the directives, the father made video calls at 18:00 GMT
on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, however, as claimed by father,
Master K was either asleep or unavailable most of the times for
flimsy reasons stated by the mother. All the calls of Master K were
always muted and his video background was also always hidden.
As further contended, the call was portrayed to be originated from
UK, however, the same was from India and in a collusive manner,
the mother with the assistance of her parents, deliberately kept
father away from Master K and avoided all sorts of communication
with him. She also did not disclose to him about his whereabouts
despite insistence. When the suspicion grew that the child is not with
mother in UK, and having all the reasons to believe so, the father
was compelled to file the habeas corpus petition before the High
Court on 10.09.2021. It is also important to note that, amidst all of
this, the mother filed a divorce petition in the UK on 31.07.2021.
7. Curiously, on 16.09.2021, when the father visited the residence of
his father-in-law along with his brother, sister and mother, to his
utter surprise, he found Master K playing in the locality with his
mother-in-law. When the father tried to meet him, the mother-in-
law denied that he is Master K and took him back from him. At the
same time, the father-in-law (appellant no. 1) and appellant no. 3
(mother’s brother) came there with neighbours, leading to physical
altercation, wherein, the father suffered fractures in 5th and 6th rib.
Thereafter, an application for preponement of hearing was filed before
the High Court, and the matter was taken up on 24.09.2021, when
the following order was passed: -
“Crl.M.No.1175 of 2021
The main case is fixed for 14.10.2021.
Prayer is for pre-poning the date of hearing.
1090 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Notice of the application.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice
on behalf of respondent – State of Haryana.
For the reasons recorded in the application, which
is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed.
The hearing in the case is pre-poned to 28.09.2021.
Crl.M.No.1173 of 2021
Prayer is for placing on record additional affidavit of
applicant/petitioner. Allowed, as prayed for.
Crl.M.No.1174 of 2021
By means of this application, the petitioner prays for
appointment of a Warrant Officer to produce minor
child Master K aged about two and half years, who is
stated to be in illegal custody of respondent Nos.5 & 6.
Respondent No. 4 is the wife of the petitioner.
Respondent No.5 is his father-in-law. Respondent
No.6 is his brother-in-law. The marriage of the
petitioner and respondent No.4 was solemnized on
29.11.2010. From this marriage they have two children
namely Miss N (daughter) aged about ten years
and Master K (son) aged about 2 ½ years. Due to
matrimonial discord between the couple, respondent
No.4 left the matrimonial home in March, 2020 without
informing the petitioner, who was abroad at that time.
She (respondent No.4) took along her both the minor
children and went to her parental home in Sonepat.
When the petitioner came back to India in October
2020 he visited respondent No.4 and requested
her to return with the children but she refused. The
petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Jind
on 03.02.2021 which is pending.
The petitioner filed the petition (CRWP-8954-2021)
for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
seeking directions to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 i.e.,
Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, and the SHO, P.S
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1091
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
Shivaji Colony, Sonepat to get released minor children
from the illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and
produce them before this Court. Notice of motion
was issued to respondent Nos.4 & 5 for 14.10.2021.
The petitioner and respondent No.4 had been living
and working in U.K from 2010 to 2018. They have
permission for indefinite stay there. The petitioner filed
an online application before the High Court Justice
Family Division, London for an inherent jurisdiction
order in relation to the minor children Miss N and
Master K seeking relief of summary return of the
children to India, for location and passport orders
and for a range of other orders to ensure the well-
being of the children. Respondent No.4 appeared
before the Court in London through VC and stated
that she had removed the children from India without
the knowledge or consent of the petitioner because
she did not know his whereabouts. She also agreed
to make the children available for telephone and/or
video contact with the petitioner as may be directed.
Vide order dated 26.07.2021, High Court Justice
Family Division, London directed respondent No.4 to
make the children available to spend time with the
petitioner by way of video and/or telephone calls on
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 18.00 GMT.
Pursuant to the order, the petitioner was on video
conferencing (zoom calls) with his daughter and
son. However, during those calls, the petitioner
found that most of the times his son was half asleep.
Sometimes respondent No.4 stated that he was
asleep. Whenever he spoke to his son he was muted.
The background was always hidden. Because of this
the petitioner became suspicious of whereabouts of
his son. On 16.09.2021, the petitioner, his brother
Sunil Chugh, his sister-Poonam Rani and his mother
Kamlesh Chugh visited residence of respondent
Nos.5 & 6 at Sonepat at about 5.00 p.m. to clear
their doubts about the whereabouts, well-being and
welfare of the minor children. The petitioner was
1092 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
shocked to see that his son Master K was playing
with his maternal grand-mother Ms. Sushma Arora.
On seeing the petitioner his son ran towards him.
However, his maternal grand-mother snatched him
away and told the petitioner that the child was not
his son. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 & 6 arrived at
the spot along with their neighbours. The petitioner
was physically assaulted. He suffered 10 serious
injuries and was referred to BPS Hospital, Khanpur.
CT scan of his chest revealed fractures of the anterior
ends of right 5th and 6th ribs. A copy of the medical
record is Annexure P-3. The petitioner’s statement
was recorded by respondent No.3-SHO, P.S Shivaji
Colony, Sonepat but despite his having suffered
grievous injuries, no FIR was registered.
Sh. Anil Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the 2 ½ year old son of the petitioner is
presently in the illegal custody of respondent Nos. 5
& 6. Respondent No.4 has gone to U.K. leaving him
behind. The petitioner apprehends that his son may
be removed to an undisclosed destination abroad or
any other place beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, respondent No.
2-Superintendent of Police, Sonepat is requested
to immediately depute a senior Police Official to
visit the residence of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 at #25,
Shivaji Colony, Sonepat, locate the whereabouts
of the son of the petitioner and satisfy that he is
in the safe custody of respondent No.5 and 6. The
passport of Master K be taken into possession and
retained in safe custody of respondent No. 2. The
concerned police official would also ensure that the
child is produced before the Court on the next date
of hearing through Video Conferencing mode from
the residence of respondent No. 5 and 6.
List on 28.09.2021. To be shown in the Urgent List.
Meanwhile, Respondents No. 5 and 6 are directed
not to remove/ take away Master K - the son of the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1093
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
petitioner to any place beyond the borders of District
Sonepat.
A copy of this petition and the connected application
be served on respondent Nos.5 & 6 through
respondent No.2.
A copy of this order be provided Dasti to Ld. State
counsel for onward transmission to concerned
quarters for compliance.”
8. As such, Superintendent of Police, Sonipat was requested to depute
a senior police official to visit the residence of appellant nos. 1 & 3
to locate the whereabouts of Master K and satisfy that he was in the
safe custody. It was directed that the passport of Master K be taken
into possession and retained in safe custody. Master K was also
to be produced before the High Court through video conferencing
from the residence of the appellant nos. 1 & 3 on 28.09.2021. When
the matter was taken up on 28.09.2021, the High Court passed the
following order, which is also relevant, hence, reproduced as under: -
“Pursuant to the directions contained in the order
dated 24.9.2021, the police officials visited the house of
respondents No. 4 to 6 at Sonipat. The minor child Master
K was present in the house alongwith respondents No.
5 and 6.
Respondents No. 5 and 6 have appeared alongwith minor
child Master K in Court today through video conferencing.
Mr. Surender Singh, learned AAG Haryana states that Mr.
Hans Raj, DSP who was deputed to visit the house of
respondents No. 5 and 6 has specifically inquired about the
passport of minor child Master K. Respondents No. 5 and
6 have stated that the passport is not in their possession
and they are not aware about the passport.
Mr. Sandhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf
of respondents No.4 to 6. He states that respondents
are trying to locate the passport. As and when the same
is located, it would immediately be handed over to DSP
concerned who is inquiring the matter.
1094 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for petitioner has stressed
that if the minor child Master K is presently in the custody
of respondents No. 5 and 6, then interim custody of minor
child be handed over to him as he is the natural guardian.
Mr. Sandhu prays for time to address arguments. He
undertakes on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6 that they
would not remove/take away minor son of petitioner Master
K to any place beyond the borders of District Sonipat
during pendency of this petition.
Adjourned to 1.10.2021.
To be shown in urgent list.”
9. Thereafter, the counsel for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 appearing
before the High Court had undertaken that they would not remove/
take away Master K beyond the borders of district Sonipat during
pendency of the habeas corpus petition. Later, the undertaking was
acknowledged, and the hearing was concluded. The High Court
vide order impugned dated 16.11.2021 allowed the habeas corpus
petition and passed the following directions: -
“Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances,
in my view:
(i) it would not be in the interest of Master K (sic) to be
permitted to travel to U.K. pending a determination of
the various disputes between the parties in the Courts
in U.K. In U.K. respondent No.4 would have to single
handedly care for Master K (sic) and her daughter Miss
N (sic), which may be difficult in view of the demands of
her career. In India, apart from his father - the petitioner,
Master K (sic) can enjoy the care, love and affection of
his grandparents and other members of the family both
on the paternal and maternal side. Though born in U.K.
Master K (sic) has been in India since 29.06.2019 (He
was a little over four months then. He is now about two
years eight months. His date of birth being 15.02.2019);
(ii) pending a final determination of the issues of custody
between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in a properly
instituted proceeding, the best interest of Master K (sic)
would be served if his custody is handed over to the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1095
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
petitioner. Petitioner’s mother (paternal grandmother of
Master K (sic) resides with the petitioner and would be
available to care for him.
Respondents No. 4 to 6 are directed to hand over Master K
(sic) to the petitioner on 6th December, 2021. Respondents
No. 5 and 6 would take Master K (sic) to the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 6th December, 2021
at 10.00 AM where petitioner along with his mother would
be present. Master K (sic) would be handed over to the
petitioner in the presence of CJM Sonepat. Respondents
No. 5 and 6 would not directly or indirectly hinder or obstruct
the petitioner from leaving the place with Master K.
Once the custody of Master K (sic) is handed over to
him, the petitioner would make available Master K (sic)
to spend time with respondent No. 4 (mother) by way of
video and/or telephonic calls every day.
Considering that Master K (sic) has been living with
respondents No. 5 and 6 for the last over one year when
respondent No. 4 started residing there along the children
(Miss N (sic) and Master K (sic) petitioner would also
facilitate telephone/ video contact between Master K (sic)
and his maternal grandparents at least thrice a week.
As Master K (sic) would take some time to settle in the new
place and would initially need greater care and affection
to make him comfortable, the petitioner would not travel
abroad for six months from the date the custody of Master
K (sic) is handed over to him.”
10. The said order has been assailed by the mother, her father and
her brother by filing the present appeal. In the proceeding dated
13.12.2021 notice was issued and the stay was granted on execution
of the order of the High Court subject to the condition that Master
K will not be taken abroad. On perusal of submissions and records,
it appears that the Family Court in UK vide order dated 21.12.2021
passed a decree of divorce in the petition filed by the mother,
though, the said decree is under challenge in appeal filed by father.
On the contrary, the Family Court at Jind, Haryana, by order dated
20.09.2022 had granted ex-parte decree of divorce in favour of the
father in the divorce petition filed by him, which has been put to
1096 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
challenge in the appeal filed by mother. Amidst all this cross-country
litigation and pendency of the present appeal this Court vide order
dated 20.04.2022 granted visitation right for Master K to the father
on every Sunday between 12 to 5 p.m. Be that as it may, it further
appears that after conclusion of the hearing of the case before the
High Court on 14.10.2021 and prior to pronouncement of judgment on
16.11.2021, the judgment dated 12.11.2021 passed by the UK High
Court in final hearing of the application preferred by father seeking
return of his children was not available before the High Court.
11. In the said backdrop, the aforesaid judgment assumes significance
and is necessary to be referred to. In the said judgment, the UK High
Court has referenced the previous orders passed and in particular,
recorded the conduct of the mother along with conduct of father as
per the averments made by the mother. In paras 39 and 40 of the
said judgment observations made against the mother are as under:
"39. It has since been brought to the attention of this court
and the father that Master K did not leave India with
his mother and sister. As stated above, Master K
has been in the care of his maternal grandparents in
Sonipat since 8 May 2021. It is inconceivable that Mrs
Justice Arbuthnot would have issued the order in those
terms had she known that Master K was not in the UK
with his mother, but rather in India with his maternal
grandparents. The order refers to the fact that the
mother “confirmed that she removed the children from
India” and agreed to “make the children available
for telephone and/or video contact”. I underline and
highlight the plural form of “children”. Mrs Justice
Arbuthnot ordered that both of the children, Miss N
and Master K, be made available for video contact
calls at 18:00 GMT. 18:00 GMT translates to 22:30
in Sonipat during the summer and, with the end of
BST, now translates to 23:30. She would never have
made such an order had she known that Master K
was in fact in India.
40. It is clear from the above 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. This crude subterfuge, which was
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1097
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
always going to be found out, does the mother no
credit at all.”
emphasis supplied
12. On the basis of the statement of Miss N, apprehension regarding
father has been recorded in the said judgment, however, the Court
proceeded to decide the issue of ‘habitual residence’ and applying
the ‘test of sufficiency of integration’, observed that Miss N has
sufficiently reintegrated so as to become the habitual resident of UK
as she is staying since May 2021 continuously. Though for Master
K, the Court noted that Master K immediate after birth visited the
India and has mostly spent his life there. He cannot be said to be a
habitual resident. The UK High Court disposing-of the case, passed
the following the order: -
"67. Since June 2019 neither parent has behaved well
towards the other. The father has harassed and
bullied the mother in the ways I have described. The
mother has behaved deceptively and high-handedly.
She has not conducted her case with propriety for
which I had to admonish her at the start of the case.
68. This poor behaviour must not distract me from my
essential task, which is to determine what is in the
best interests of Miss N. I am satisfied that it would
be in the best interests of Miss N that she should be
reunited with Master K and that they should be brought
up together under the primary care of their mother
in London. The wishes and feelings of Miss N very
strongly favour that. Miss N enjoys a social network
in London, and is well settled here. The mother
wishes to become economically independent and has
convinced me that this is more easily achievable in
London where there are more facilities to be able to
balance work with her responsibilities to the children.
It makes little odds whether the mother primarily cares
for the children in London or in some city in India
far away from the father’s abode. I consider it likely
that the father will not stay working in India for long.
He has been working in the USA for Credit Suisse
1098 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and, although he says that he is intending to return
to India permanently, I sensed a degree of forensic
positioning during his answers on this subject. If the
father returned to work in the USA, then it makes
absolutely no difference to him whether the children
are under the primary care of the mother in England
or in India.
69. I have concluded that the appropriate course is for
me to adjourn the father’s application for the return
of Miss N to India pending the decision of Mr Justice
Singh Sidhu about the future of Master K.
70. My order will contain a respectful request to Mr
Justice Singh Sidhu to consider allowing the mother
to relocate Master K to London to be reunited with
his sister, provided, of course, that he is satisfied
that such a disposal would be in his best interests.”
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the UK High Court in para 72
ordered as under: -
"72. My order will therefore provide that:
i) The father’s application for the return of Miss
N to India shall stand adjourned;
ii) The father’s application that the children be
made wards of court is dismissed.
iii) Miss N shall live with the mother and have
contact with her father;
iv) If the court in India permits Master K to relocate
to London, he shall live with the mother and
have contact with his father;
v) In the event that the court in India permits
Master K to relocate to London, the father’s
return application shall stand dismissed;
vi) If by 12 February 2022 the court in India has
not permitted Master K to relocate to London,
the father’s return application shall be restored
before me;
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1099
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
vii) In any event the travel documents of the mother
and Miss N are to be returned to the mother; and
viii) A copy of this judgment shall be made available
at the earliest opportunity to Mr Justice Singh
Sidhu.
14. In view of the foregoing factual backdrop, in our viewpoint, it is required
to be seen that whether the directions as issued by the High Court
warrant interference in this appeal or not. It is further required to be
looked into whether the interim custody of the Master K be continued
with appellant no. 1 till final determination of the issues between the
parties and whether without proper instituted proceedings of custody
of Master K, continuation of his custody with grandfather would be
in his best interest or it should be with the father.
15. During pendency of the present appeal, we deemed it proper to have
an interaction with the child to gain his inclination and vide order
dated 08.05.2024, Master K was called for discussion in Chamber.
Upon interaction and looking to his age, which was approximately 5
years, we found that Master K was not in a position to substantially
express anything for anyone, and therefore, the matter posted for
final hearing.
16. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and to
answer the questions as posed hereinabove, we are constrained to
refer the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Lahari Sakhamuri v.
Sobhan Kodali1’, where this Court was dealing with question qua
jurisdiction of Family Court, Hyderabad to decide the application for
custody of minor children (both US citizens), filed by their mother
who had come to India for attending her grandmother’s funeral. The
said application was filed by concealing the application for custody
already filed in Court in US by her. Balancing the doctrine of comity
of Courts with the best interest of the child, this Court on the issue
of whether it was in the best interest of the children to return to US
observed as under: -
“42. The essence of the judgment in Nithya Anand
Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454, is that
the doctrines of comity of courts, intimate connect, orders
passed by foreign courts having jurisdiction in the matter
1 (2019) 7 SCC 311
1100 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
regarding custody of the minor child, citizenship of the
parents and the child, etc. cannot override the consideration
of the best interest and the welfare of the child and that
the direction to return the child to the foreign jurisdiction
must not result in any physical, mental, psychological, or
other harm to the child.
xx xx xx
49. The crucial factors which have to be kept in mind by
the courts for gauging the welfare of the children equally
for the parent’s can be inter alia, delineated, such as (1)
maturity and judgment; (2) mental stability; (3) ability to
provide access to schools; (4) moral character; (5) ability
to provide continuing involvement in the community; (6)
financial sufficiency and last but not the least the factors
involving relationship with the child, as opposed to
characteristics of the parent as an individual.
50. While dealing with the younger tender year doctrine,
Janusz Korczar a famous Polish-Jewish educator &
children’s author observed:
“children cannot wait too long and they are not
people of tomorrow, but are people of today.
They have a right to be taken seriously, and to
be treated with tenderness and respect. They
should be allowed to grow into whoever they
are meant to be — the unknown person inside
each of them is our hope for the future.”
Child rights may be limited but they should not be ignored
or eliminated since children are in fact persons wherein
all fundamental rights are guaranteed to them keeping in
mind the best interest of the child and the various other
factors which play a pivotal role in taking decision to which
reference has been made taking note of the parental
autonomy which courts do not easily discard.
17. Similarly, this Court in ‘Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu and Others2’, while allowing the writ petition under
2 (2023) 12 SCC 472
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1101
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
Article 32 filed by the mother seeking issuance of writ in the nature
of habeas corpus to trace and produce her minor children (both
residents of US) and deliver their custody so as to repatriate them
back to US, reiterated the paramount importance best interest of
child and observed as thus: -
“91. While considering the competing rights of natural
guardianships vis-à-vis the welfare of the child, the test
for consideration by the court was held to be; what would
best serve the welfare and interest of the child. Referring
to the earlier decisions in Sumedha Nagpal v. State (NCT
of Delhi) (2000) 9 SCC 745; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A.
Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840; Elizabeth Dinshaw v.
Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42 and Muthuswami
Chettiar v. K.M. Chinna Muthusami Moopanar, 1934 SCC
OnLine Mad 280, it was also held that the welfare of child
prevails over the legal rights of the parties while deciding
the custody of minor child. The observations made in the
judgment in this regard are as follows: [See Anjali Kapoor v.
Rajiv Baijal, (2009) 7 SCC 322, SCC p. 325, paras 14-15]
“14. The question for our consideration is,
whether in the present scenario would it be
proper to direct the appellant to hand over
the custody of the minor child Anagh to the
respondent.
15. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
the father is the guardian of the minor child
until he is found unfit to be the guardian of the
minor female child. In deciding such questions,
the welfare of the minor child is the paramount
consideration and such a question cannot be
decided merely based upon the rights of the
parties under the law. [See Sumedha Nagpal v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2000) 9 SCC 745, SCC
p. 747, paras 2 & 5.]
92. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC
840], this Court has observed that : (SCC p. 847, para 7)
“7. … the principle on which the court should
decide the fitness of the guardian mainly
1102 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
depends on two factors : (i) the father’s fitness
or otherwise to be the guardian, and (ii) the
interests of the minors.”
93. This Court considering the welfare of the child also
stated that : (SCC p. 855, para 15)
“15. … The children are not mere chattels :
nor are they mere playthings for their parents.
Absolute right of parents over the destinies and
the lives of their children has, in the modern
changed social conditions, yielded to the
considerations of their welfare as human beings
so that they may grow up in a normal balanced
manner to be useful members of the society….”
94. In Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (supra),
this Court has observed that whenever a question arises
before a court pertaining to the custody of the minor child,
the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the
legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant
criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare
of the child.
95. The question as to how the court would determine
what is best in the interest of the child was considered
McGrath (Infants), In re [McGrath (Infants), In re, (1893)
1 Ch 143 (CA)] , and it was observed by Lindley, L.J., as
follows : (Ch p. 148)
“… The dominant matter for the consideration
of the Court is the welfare of the child. But the
welfare of a child is not to be measured by
money only, nor by physical comfort only. The
word welfare must be taken in its widest sense.
The moral and religious welfare of the child must
be considered as well as its physical well-being.
Nor can the ties of affection be disregarded.”
96. The issue as to the welfare of the child again arose
“O” (An Infant), In re [“O” (An Infant), In re, 1965 Ch 23
(CA)] , where Harman, L.J., stated as follows : (Ch p. 29)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1103
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
“… It is not, I think, really in dispute that in all
cases the paramount consideration is the welfare
of the child; but that, of course, does not mean
you add up shillings and pence, or situation or
prospects, or even religion. What you look at
is the whole background of the child’s life, and
the first consideration you have to take into
account when you are looking at his welfare
is : who are his parents and are they ready to
do their duty?”
97. The question as to what would be the dominating factors
while examining the welfare of a child was considered in
Walker v. Walker & Harrison [Walker v. Walker & Harrison,
1981 New Ze Recent Law 257] and it was observed that
while the material considerations have their place, they
are secondary matters. More important are stability and
security, loving and understanding care and guidance, and
warm and compassionate relationships which are essential
for the development of the child’s character, personality
and talents. It was stated as follows:
“Welfare is an all-encompassing word. It includes
material welfare; both in the sense of adequacy
of resources to provide a pleasant home and a
comfortable standard of living and in the sense
of an adequacy of care to ensure that good
health and due personal pride are maintained.
However, while material considerations have
their place they are secondary matters. More
important are the stability and the security, the
loving and understanding care and guidance,
the warm and compassionate relationships that
are essential for the full development of the
child’s own character, personality and talents.”
98. In the context of consideration of an application by a
parent seeking custody of a child through the medium of a
habeas corpus proceeding, it has been stated in American
Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol. 39 as follows:
1104 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“… An application by a parent, through the
medium of a habeas corpus proceeding, for
custody of a child is addressed to the discretion
of the court, and custody may be withheld from
the parent where it is made clearly to appear
that by reason of unfitness for the trust or of
other sufficient causes the permanent interests
of the child would be sacrificed by a change of
custody. In determining whether it will be for
the best interest of a child to award its custody
to the father or mother, the court may properly
consult the child, if it has sufficient judgment.”
99. Thus, it is well established that in issuing the writ of
habeas corpus in the case of minors, the jurisdiction which
the Court exercises is an inherent jurisdiction as distinct
from a statutory jurisdiction conferred by any particular
provision in any special statute. In other words, the
employment of the writ of habeas corpus in child custody
cases is not pursuant to, but independent of any statute.
The jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in such cases
on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force of
the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor
ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the
result sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of
the jurisdiction of a court of equity. The primary object of a
habeas corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to
determine in whose custody the best interests of the child
will probably be advanced. In a habeas corpus proceeding
brought by one parent against the other for the custody
of their child, the Court has before it the question of the
rights of the parties as between themselves, and also has
before it, if presented by the pleadings and the evidence,
the question of the interest which the State, as parens
patriae, has in promoting the best interests of the child.”
18. Recently, this Court in ‘Neethu B. Vs. Rajesh Kumar 3’, was
dealing with a review petition preferred by mother on the ground
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1435
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1105
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
of deteriorating mental health of child due to order of handing over
custody by this Court to the father. The same was corroborated by
medical reports on record. While allowing the review petition and
granting custody back to mother, this Court observed as thus –
“15. The core and inalienable standard is the paramount
consideration of the child’s welfare, which is affected by an
array of factors, is ever evolving and cannot be confined
in a straitjacket. Therefore, each case has to be dealt with
on the basis of its unique facts and take into account any
change in circumstances which have an impact on the
quality of a child’s upbringing.
xx xx xx
25. ….The factors defining the best interests of a child
are multiple and range from quality education, a nurturing
family environment, healthy worldly experiences, provision
of basic amenities of life, meeting of financial requirements,
access to a friendly social system to imparting of spiritual
and cultural learnings. The list is naturally not an exhaustive
one. However, the essential feature is that a secure,
supportive and loving family forms the bedrock of a healthy
childhood experience and helps one grow into a balanced,
positive and confident adult.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and after considering the facts
as outlined above, we are constrained to observe that the present
case reflects a deep-rooted conflict between the mother and father,
arising from their divergent intentions regarding staying together and
raising their children in India. This discord has not only strained their
marital relationship but has also adversely impacted their children. It
is evident from the conduct of both parties that, although the mother
has obtained a divorce from the Family Court in London, she has
challenged the divorce decree granted by the Family Court in Jind,
Haryana, in India. Conversely, the father—having secured a divorce
from the Family Court in Jind, India—has contested the divorce
decree passed by the UK Family Court. In essence, while both
parties seek divorce, they refuse to accept the decrees granted by
courts in different jurisdictions and continue to challenge them, which
they are legally entitled to do. Attempts at mediation have failed. It
appears that both parties wish to obtain divorce only from the court
1106 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the jurisdiction in which they currently reside. This is not merely a
clash of egos, but prima-facie, reflects a concerning mindset that may
ultimately come at the cost of the welfare of the minor children. While
we refrain from making any definitive comment on the intentions of
the parties, the circumstances compel us to focus on how best the
welfare and interests of the children can be safeguarded.
20. In the said sequel, after going through the judgment dated 12.11.2021
of the UK High Court, it reveals that when the statement of Miss N
was taken, the reflection of hate against father cannot been ruled
out. It is also to be noted that Miss N is staying with mother since
long and the father is staying in India, then how far such hate may
be good for the father. If we look the conduct of the mother, it can
safely be observed that while leaving Master K in India, it was her
primary duty to inform the father, which was not discharged. It was
also her duty to disclose to UK High Court that Master K is not with
her in the proceedings initiated by father, but the said disclosure was
also not made, though only at a later stage, i.e., after father filed the
application seeking return of her children before UK High Court and
a habeas corpus petition before High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
We are constrained to express our displeasure at such conduct of
the mother and deprecate the same. It is to be noted that, due to
such conduct, the father was deprived of having virtual meetings
with Master K despite orders from UK High Court and ultimately he
had to file the habeas corpus petition when the suspicion brewed.
Master K throughout was living with appellant no. 1 and father was
deliberately not informed about the same despite the Court orders.
As such, it appears that mother never intended Master K to meet
his father and to say the least, honour the Court orders. The judicial
system in India as well as UK had been taken for a ride by the
mother for the reasons known best to her. Be that as it may, the
entire whirlpool of litigation has been set into motion by the parents,
wherein the children are being pulled in and at this stage, we are
concerned with the welfare of Master K and certainly, in our view,
such conduct is clearly not in favour of the welfare of the Master K.
21. With the above, we abstain from observing much about the conduct
of the mother and the manner in which Master K was left by her at
Sonipat with the grandparents. The factum of leaving the child with the
grandparents could only be unveiled when the proceedings were set in
motion on filing of the writ in the nature of habeas corpus, wherein the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1107
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
interim custody of the child had been directed to be handed over to the
father looking to the best interest of the child. In such circumstances,
where the mother is staying in London with Miss N and Master K
is staying with grandparents, despite the availability of father, who
has sufficient means of sustenance to undertake the well-being of
the child, as reflected from affidavit dated 27.08.2025 filed by him
in compliance of directions given by this Court, the best interest of
Master K needs to be ascertained. On perusal of affidavit, it reveals
that father is a qualified engineer having Master’s degree in Computer
Science with a post-graduate diploma in Business Administration. He
was also employed in Singapore, United Kingdom and US for time
being. Thus, his academic credentials and professional competence
cannot be doubted. Similarly, looking to other factors, his earning
is sufficient, and he is owner of residential flat in Sector-70, Noida
and currently residing there with his mother and younger sister. In
our considered opinion, Noida is more suitably located than Sonipat,
having better educational institutes, therefore, in our view, welfare of
the Master K, would be served if the interim custody of the child is
given to the father who is also the natural guardian, subject to further
orders by the competent Court of jurisdiction, wherein the proceedings
for custody under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 be initiated in this regard. The affidavit dated 27.08.2025 filed
by the father shall be treated as an undertaking and the contents
thereof be treated as part of this order.
22. In the light of the above discussion, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the considered view that the welfare and best
interest of the child would be served if he would continue with the
father, as such in the opinion of this Court the High Court was justified
to grant the interim custody of Master K to the father. Therefore,
the findings as recorded by the High Court does not warrant any
interference in this appeal. In view of the foregoing, the present
appeal stands dismissed with the following directions: -
a. The custody of minor K shall be handed over by the appellant no.
1 (mother’s father) to father within a period of fifteen days from
the date of uploading of this judgment on or before 30.09.2025.
The place of stay for Master K along with mobile number and
email address of father be supplied to the Registry of this Court
within a period of three days from today;
1108 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
b. After handing over the custody of Master K, father/mother, as
the case may be, shall file appropriate proceedings under the
provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before the
competent Court within a period of one month. On filing the
same, it shall be decided in accordance with law uninfluenced
by any of the observations made in this case;
c. Mother/sibling of Master K shall have the right to audio/video
access to him on every Saturday from 5 p.m. (IST) to 7 p.m.
(IST). On mother’s visit to India, she shall have further right of
visitation on every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at a place of
mutual choice decided by the parties;
d. The maternal grandparents of Master K shall also have visitation
rights every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at a place of mutual
choice decided between the parties;
e. The father shall not take Master K outside the jurisdiction of
India without the leave of the jurisdictional High Court;
f. The issue of citizenship of Master K shall be subject to the
outcome of the proceedings initiated under the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890. We expect from the parties not to violate
such conditions until the issue of guardianship is decided by
the competent Court;
g. After registration of the proceedings under the provisions
of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, parties are at liberty to
seek audio/video access and visitation rights. On filing such
application, the concerned Court shall pass appropriate order
uninfluenced by the directions passed by this Court which are
interim in nature;
h. The Juvenile Justice Board/ Magistrate (Juvenile Justice) of
the place where Master K would stay with father in future shall
oversee and monitor the physical and psychological well-being
of Master K through the Child Welfare Committee or any Social
Welfare Officer available within the District. In case any adverse
report on those issues is received, information in this regard be
sent to the Registry of this Court through the Principal District
Judge of the concerned district. On receipt of such information,
it be registered as Miscellaneous Application and the matter be
immediately listed for further orders.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1109
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
i. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to
the concerned District Judge, Magistrate (Juvenile Justice)
and Child Welfare Committee for ensuring compliance of the
directions contained hereinabove.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 325 OF 2022
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 124-125 OF 2024
SLP (CRL) NO. 17530 OF 2024
23. In view of the above directions, Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 17530
of 2024, Contempt Petition (C) No. 325 of 2022 and Contempt Petition
(C) Nos. 124-125 of 2024 stand disposed of. Pending application(s)
if any shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Matters disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Custody of the minor son"Sign in to search