Judicial System In India & UK “Taken For A Ride” By Mother: Supreme Court Upholds Grant Of Child’s Interim Custody To Father
The Supreme Court noted that the mother is staying in London with minor daughter and minor son is staying with grandparents, despite the availability of father, who has sufficient means of sustenance to undertake the well-being of the child.
Custody of child, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the grant of interim custody of a child to the father, saying that the judicial system in India and United Kingdom (UK) had been taken for a ride by the mother.
The Court was deciding a case involving prolonged discord of ties between the husband and wife who got married in 2010, leading to further dispute on visitation over their two children, minor daughter and minor son.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi remarked, “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.”
The Bench said that 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.
Facts of the Case
As per the father’s case, the mother left India for UK in 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. It was informed to him 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. Pursuantly, the father lodged a formal complaint before the police to know the exact whereabouts of his children. Meanwhile, the mother filed an application for non-molestation and occupation order against father in UK. Thereafter, the father filed a Divorce Petition in Noida and simultaneously, moved an application invoking inherent jurisdiction of the UK High Court of Justice, Family Division.
It was found that the mother allegedly with the assistance of her parents, kept father away from Master K (son) 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. Subsequently, when the father visited the residence of his father-in-law (Appellant) along with his brother, sister and mother, to his utter surprise, he found Master K playing in the locality with his mother-in-law. Later, the High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and this was under challenge by the mother, her father, and her brother (Appellants) before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “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.”
The Court noted that 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 of the jurisdiction in which they currently reside. … 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”, it added.
The Court further took note of the fact that 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”, it also said.
The Court was of the view that where the mother is staying in London with Miss N (daughter) 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, the best interest of Master K needs to be ascertained.
“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”, it held.
Conclusion and Directions
The Court was of the opinion that the welfare and best interest of the child would be served if he would continue with the father and that 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. … 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”, it directed.
The Court ordered that a copy of the Order be sent by the Registry of the Court to the concerned District Judge, Magistrate (Juvenile Justice) and Child Welfare Committee for ensuring compliance of the directions.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the High Court’s findings.
Cause Title- ABC & Ors. v. XYZ & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1123)
Appearance:
Senior Advocates Shadan Farasat, D. N. Goburdhan, AORs Siddhant Sharma, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, N. Annapoorani, Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Harshit Anand, Sanveer Mehlwal, Govind Bali, Parth Agarwal, Rohan K., Drishti Rawal, Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Srivastava, and Mayur Goyal.
