1. Writ petition under Article 32 for Habeas Corpus seeking custody of minor children removed from foreign jurisdiction in breach of a shared parenting plan. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 615
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 402 of 2021
Decided on : 14-07-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :S. S. Jauhar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Reena Pandey, Joseph Aristotle S., Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advocates
For the Appellant :S. S. Jauhar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Reena Pandey, Joseph Aristotle S., Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advocates
In child custody disputes, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, overriding the legal rights of parents or foreign court orders. The court must prioritize the child's best interests, including their native social, cultural, and educational environment, to ensure healthy growth and development.
Headnote:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the paramount consideration in child custody cases is the welfare of the child. In this case, the Court found that it was in the best interests of the two minor children to return to the United States with their mother, where they had been living and attending school. The Court also directed the father to apply for a visa to travel to the United States with the children and to abide by the shared parenting plan ordered by the Ohio court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a mother, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to repatriate her two minor children to the USA. The children were taken to India by the respondent, the father, without the petitioner's consent. The petitioner and the respondent had been granted a shared parenting plan by the Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, but the respondent had failed to abide by the plan. The petitioner argued that the children were being illegally detained in India and that their welfare required that they be returned to the USA. The respondent argued that he was not in a position to go back to the USA and that the children would be better off staying in India with him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the children were residents of the USA and that they had been brought up in the social and cultural milieu of that country. The Court also found that the children were accustomed to the lifestyle, language, customs, rules and regulations of the USA. The Court further found that the children had been enrolled in a special school in the USA that was meant for children with remarkably high IQs and that they had better prospects of getting refined education in the USA. The Court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to return to the USA with their mother.
Issues: 1. Whether the children were being illegally detained in India. 2. Whether the welfare of the children required that they be returned to the USA.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the paramount consideration in child custody cases is the welfare of the child. The Court found that in this case, it was in the best interests of the children to return to the USA with their mother. The Court also held that the father was not in a position to go back to the USA and that the children would be better off staying in India with him.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the father to apply for a visa to travel to the United States with the two minor children. The Court also directed the father to abide by the shared parenting plan ordered by the Ohio court. The Court further directed the petitioner to travel to India and pick up her two minor children and go back to the USA if the visa was declined to the father.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over legality of custody by natural guardian, applicability of international conventions, and whether the children's welfare is better served in the home or foreign jurisdiction. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 )
3. Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, overriding comity of courts, citizenship, or foreign orders, especially when children are deeply rooted in a foreign culture. (Para 71 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 )
4. In child custody matters, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, which overrides legal rights of guardians and the principle of comity of courts. (Para 73 , 80 , 81 , 105 )
5. Direction for the father to apply for visas to return children to the foreign jurisdiction or for the mother to retrieve them. (Para 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 )
6. Does the legal right of a natural guardian prevail over the welfare of the child in custody disputes?
No. The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, predominating to the extent that the legal rights of persons claiming guardianship play an insignificant role in the determination. (Para 73 , 83 , 86 , 92 )
7. When is a writ of Habeas Corpus maintainable in matters of child custody?
It is maintainable where the detention of a minor is found to be illegal and without authority of law, and where the welfare of the child requires a change in custody. (Para 75 , 80 , 81 , 82 )
8. How do Indian courts treat foreign custody orders in non-Hague Convention countries?
Foreign orders are considered only as one factor. The court considers the merits based on the child's welfare, which is paramount and overrides the principle of comity of courts. (Para 101 , 103 , 104 , 105 )
9. What is Parental Alienation Syndrome and how does it affect custody decisions?
It occurs when one parent influences a child to reject the other parent. Courts aim to circumvent its destructive effects, such as loyalty contests and distorted reality, to ensure balanced development. (Para 108 )
JUDGMENT
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India involves a contest over the custody of children born out of the wedlock between the petitioner-mother and the respondent no.2-father. The respondents nos.4 and 5 respectively are the brother and father of the respondent no.2.
2. The petitioner-mother has prayed for the following reliefs :
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature Habeas Corpus to the Respondent No.1 to immediately trace and produce the minor children Lakshaya Ganesh and Bhavin Sai Ganesh before this Honble Court and deliver their custody to the Petitioner Mother so as to repatriated them to the U.S. in compliance with the Order passed by the U.S. Court dated 30.07.2021.
(b) issue a direction to the Respondent No.3/Director of CBI to trace the minor children Lakshaya Ganesh and Bhavin Sai Ganesh and to produce them before this Honble Court, since the Respondent No.2 is not traceable.
(c) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature Habeas Corpus to Respondent No.2 to cooperate with anyone appointed by the Petitioner Ex-Wife to transport the minor children Lakshaya Ganesh and Bhavin Sai Ganesh to the United States within a time frame;
(d) Pass such other order or further orders and directions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
3. The case put up by the petitioner-mother may be summarised as under :
4. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 31st October 2008 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Chennai, India. Within one month from the date of the marriage, the parties migrated to the Bear, Delaware, USA.
5. The respondent no.2, at the relevant point of time, was working with the Satyam Computers. Sometime in May 2009, the parties were constrained to return to Chennai, India, as the project that the respondent no.2 had been working on with the Satyam Computers got terminated on account of some internal issues in the company.
6. On 7th October 2009, the parties were blessed with a daughter named Lakshaya Ganesh. It appears from the materials on record that sometime in January 2012, the respondent no.2 was able to secure a job in Kansas, USA. Since 2012, the parties have been residing in the USA.
7. It further appears that between April 2012 and November 2012, the respondent no.2 lost several jobs, and in such circumstances, the parties had to shift from Kansas, USA, to Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Sometime later, they shifted to Findlay, Ohio, USA. In January 2012, the minor daughter Lakshaya Ganesh started her preschool at the Owens Day Care, Findlay, Ohio, and thereafter, was admitted to a kindergarten at the Lincoln Elementary School, Findlay, Ohio. While the minor daughter Lakshaya was studying in the kindergarten, the teachers over there noticed that Lakshaya was a gifted child, i.e. a child with a remarkable IQ level. The parties were blessed thereafter with a son named Bhavin Sai Ganesh on 20th July 2013 at the Blanchard Valley Hospital, Findlay, Ohio. The minor son Bhavin Sai Ganesh is a U.S. citizen by naturalization and holds an American passport.
8. In March 2016, the petitioner cleared her GRE and TOEFL and secured admission in the Cleveland State University Ohio, USA. The respondent no.2, on the other hand, lost yet another job.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that she started living in a room with eight other girls and her minor children. She attended the university and had to take up two jobs to feed and take care of herself and her minor children.
10. By December 2016, both the children started going to school. It is her case that she used to take care of her children in all respects. Sometime in August 2016, the respondent no.2 moved for yet another job to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and in such circumstances, the petitioner had to stay all alone with the minor children and take care of them.
11. In May 2018, t
