SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out Of SLP (Crl) No. 9497 of 2021] With Contempt Petition (C) No. 325 of 2022 In Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 9497 OF 2021 With Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 124-125 of 2024 In Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 9497 of 2021 With SLP (Crl) No. 17530 of 2024
Decided on : 16-09-2025
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 7 – Custody of child – While both parties seek divorce, they refuse to accept decrees granted by courts in different jurisdictions and continue to challenge them, which they are legally entitled to do – Attempts at mediation have failed – Both parties wish to obtain divorce only from court of jurisdiction in which they currently reside – Present case reflects a deep-rooted conflict between 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 – Mother never intended the child to meet his father and to honour Court orders – Judicial system in India as well as UK had been taken for a ride by mother – Factum of leaving the child with grandparents could only be unveiled when proceedings were set in motion on filing of writ in nature of habeas corpus, wherein interim custody of child had been directed to be handed over to father looking to best interest of child – Considering academic credentials and professional competence as well as earning of father, welfare of child, would be served if interim custody of child is given to father who is also natural guardian, subject to further orders by Court of competent jurisdiction wherein proceedings for custody under provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 be initiated in this regard – Custody of child shall be handed over by appellant no. 1 (mother’s father) to father within a period of fifteen days – Directions regarding Visitation Rights issued. (Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
In an ongoing prolonged discord of ties between husband – Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Chugh and wife – Latika Arora @ Latika Chugh who got married on 29.11.2010, leading to further dispute on visitation over their two children, minor daughter ‘Miss N’ (currently staying with mother in England and Wales) and minor son ‘Master K’ (currently staying with grandfather – appellant No.1), writ petition seeking writ in nature of habeas corpus came to be filed by father on an unhealthy note before High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh alleging illegal custody of children with appellants.
Findings of Court:
Juvenile Justice Board/ Magistrate (Juvenile Justice) of the place where Master K would stay with father in future shall oversee and monitor 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 Registry of this Court through Principal District Judge of concerned district. On receipt of such information, it be registered as Miscellaneous Application and the matter be immediately listed for further orders.
Result : Appeal dismissed with directions.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in custody decisions. (!) (!) - It addresses conflicts between parents seeking divorce in different jurisdictions and notes attempts at mediation have failed, with both parties entitled to pursue decrees in their respective jurisdictions. (!) - The Court transfers interim custody of Master K to the father within fifteen days and lays out conditions for custody, visitation, and safeguards, including proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act and oversight by Juvenile Justice Board/Child Welfare Committee. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The UK High Court and Indian proceedings are acknowledged, with references to respective orders on visitation, relocation, and guardianship, and the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholding interim custody to the father. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Visitation rights are defined for mother and maternal grandparents, and safeguards to prevent international removal of Master K are imposed. (!) (!) (!) - The order requires custody to be handed over to the father by 30.09.2025 and subsequent Guardian and Wards Act proceedings to be initiated within one month. (!) (!) - The case highlights concerns about conduct of both parents and emphasizes child welfare over parental disputes. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Criminal Appeal No. _______ 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 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 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 abo
Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Custody of child – Welfare of child should prevail over other factors.
Natural guardians of child have right to custody of child, but that right is not absolute and courts are expected to give paramount consideration to welfare of minor child.
Indian courts can enforce foreign parenting orders for child custody, prioritizing the child's welfare and establishing illegitimacy of custody if it violates those orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.