1. Habeas corpus petition for return of child removed from USA in violation of foreign custody orders. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 366
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Renuka Yara, JJ.
Kashyap Amboju - Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.29562 of 2025
Decided On : 18-09-2026
Important Points
The court affirmed that the principle of Comity of Courts requires Indian courts to defer to orders of competent foreign jurisdictions in child custody disputes, provided such deference aligns with the paramount consideration of the child's best interests and welfare.
Subject
Family Law - Child Custody and Repatriation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Habeas Corpus - Comity of Courts - Custody of Minor Child - Best Interests of the Child - Doctrine of Comity of Courts is a salutary principle to encourage certainty and prevent forum-hunting, operating as a self-imposed rule of judicial restraint (Para 8) - While Indian courts should consider foreign custody orders, the child’s best interests remain the decisive factor and the overriding determinant in repatriation disputes (Para 14) - Writ Court's role in such matters is limited to a summary inquiry to determine the proper Court for final adjudication (Para 20) - Unilateral removal of a child from a foreign jurisdiction in breach of court orders does not shift the theatre of conflict to the current jurisdiction (Para 20).
Facts of the case:
A father filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the production of his minor daughter, a foreign citizen, who was brought to the current jurisdiction by the mother in violation of orders passed by a foreign Court. The foreign Court had previously issued a status-quo order prohibiting the change of the child's residence and later granted sole temporary custody to the father after the child was removed. The mother subsequently initiated divorce and custody proceedings in a local Family Court.
Findings of Court:
The foreign Court is a competent jurisdiction that passed orders after a comprehensive appreciation of facts. The mother's conduct in removing the child in breach of an agreed parenting plan and court orders was noted. The child's welfare is best served by returning to her native environment.
Issues: Whether the Writ Court should exercise jurisdiction de novo or defer to the orders of a competent foreign court under the principle of Comity of Courts, and what constitutes the best interest of the minor child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of Comity of Courts requires deference to orders of a competent foreign court to prevent conflicting decisions and forum-hunting, provided the child's best interests are served. Since the foreign Court was already seized of the matter and the child is a citizen of that jurisdiction, the court should exercise judicial restraint and direct the child's return.
Result: Writ Petition allowed and disposed of with directions for the return of the child to the foreign jurisdiction.
Facts of the case:
A father filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the production of his minor daughter, a foreign citizen, who was brought to the current jurisdiction by the mother in violation of orders passed by a foreign Court. The foreign Court had previously issued a status-quo order prohibiting the change of the child's residence and later granted sole temporary custody to the father after the child was removed. The mother subsequently initiated divorce and custody proceedings in a local Family Court.
Findings of Court:
The foreign Court is a competent jurisdiction that passed orders after a comprehensive appreciation of facts. The mother's conduct in removing the child in breach of an agreed parenting plan and court orders was noted. The child's welfare is best served by returning to her native environment.
Issues: Whether the Writ Court should exercise jurisdiction de novo or defer to the orders of a competent foreign court under the principle of Comity of Courts, and what constitutes the best interest of the minor child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of Comity of Courts requires deference to orders of a competent foreign court to prevent conflicting decisions and forum-hunting, provided the child's best interests are served. Since the foreign Court was already seized of the matter and the child is a citizen of that jurisdiction, the court should exercise judicial restraint and direct the child's return.
Result: Writ Petition allowed and disposed of with directions for the return of the child to the foreign jurisdiction.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- article 226 (Para 19)
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Raghuram, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Sridevi, learned counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel representing Mr. Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Raghuram, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Sridevi, learned counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel representing Mr. Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel
Table of Contents
2. Father sought enforcement of US custody orders; mother argued parallel Indian proceedings and child's best interests. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Comity of courts requires deference to competent foreign court orders, subject to child's best interests. (Para 8 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 20 , 22 , 33 )
4. Best interests of child, determined by competent foreign court, paramount; comity of courts requires judicial restraint. (Para 15 , 22 , 33 )
5. Writ allowed; mother directed to return child to USA or hand custody to father, with travel and access provisions. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. What is the principle of comity of courts in custody disputes involving foreign court orders?
Courts of one jurisdiction should respect and give effect to judicial decisions of another jurisdiction out of mutual deference. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. How does the best interest of the child interact with the principle of comity of courts?
Comity of courts is subservient to the best interests of the child, which remains the paramount and decisive factor. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. What is the role of a writ court in a habeas corpus petition involving a child removed from a foreign jurisdiction?
The writ court conducts a summary inquiry limited to determining the proper forum for final adjudication and must discourage parallel proceedings. (Para 20 , 22 )
9. Does a parent's unilateral removal of a child in violation of a foreign court order affect the court's decision?
Yes, such conduct violates court orders and agreed parenting plans, and is considered in determining the appropriate forum. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
10. When may a court direct return of a child to a foreign jurisdiction despite pending proceedings in India?
When a competent foreign court first exercised jurisdiction, passed orders after hearing parties, and the child's best interests favor return. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
ORDER :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and for a direction on the respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, (1) the Principal Secretary, Home Department of Telangana State, (2) the Director General of Police, Telangana State and (3) the Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, to produce the detenue, viz., Yashika Nandana Amboju, a child aged four years and to hand the detenue over to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner and the respondent No.4 are the father and mother of the detenue, respectively. The petitioner claims that the detenue is in unlawful custody of the respondent No.4 after the respondent No.4 brought the detenue from the USA to Hyderabad in contravention of orders passed by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Washington, USA (‘US Court’). The petitioner hence seeks appropriate orders from this Court to enable the detenue to return to the USA in compliance with the orders passed by the US Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places a sequence of events including the orders passed by the US Court on 20.02.2025 and 18.04.2025. Counsel submits that the respondent No.4 participated in the proceedings before the US Court and filed an unsuccessful motion for dismissal of the Petition for Legal Separation filed by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.4 agreed to a Parenting Plan with the petitioner before the US Court but that the petitioner was subsequently denied access to the detenue and was deprived of shared parenting as was agreed by the parties before the US Court. Counsel urged that the respondent No.4’s refusal to allow video calls between the petitioner and the detenue violates the rights of the minor child. Counsel places emphasis on the doctrine of ‘Comity of Courts’.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 (mother of the detenue) submits that the respondent No.4 has already initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner after her return to India on 13.04.2025. Counsel submits that the respondent No.4 also filed FCOP No.675 of 2025 in May, 2025, before the Principal Family Court at Hyderabad, seeking dissolution of marriage and permanent custody of the detenue. It is also submitted that the petitioner (father of the detenue) appeared before the Family Court in September, 2025. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.4 is presently residing in Hyderabad with her parents and that the petitioner is interacting with the detenue through video calls.
5. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The AGP submits that the Writ Petition involves a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 and that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have no role to play in the alleged illegal detention of the minor child.
6. We have heard learned counsel and the learned AGP appearing for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record including the orders passed by the US Court.
Background of the Conflict
7. It is necessary to set out the relevant facts chronologically.
| 30.08.2018 | The petitioner and the respondent No.4 got married in India. |
| 21.09.2022 | The detenue Yashika Nandana Amboju was born in U.S.A. |
| 06.02.2025 | The petitioner filed a petition for Legal Separation in the US Court against the respondent No.4. |
| 20.02.2025 | The US Court granted an order of status-quo prohibiting the petitioner and the respondent No.4 from, inter alia, changing the child’s usual place of residence. |
| 17.03.2025 | The respondent No.4 filed a motion to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner for forum non conveniens requesting to move the case to India. |
| 10.04.2025 | The respondent No.4’s motion to dismiss was denied by the US Court and both the parties agreed to a Temporary Parenting Plan. |
| 13.04.2025 | The respondent No.4 left USA for India with the detenue. |
| 15.04.2025 | The respondent No.4’s Advocate filed a motion to withdraw as the attorney on record |
