Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3558]

WRIT PETITION NO: 22723/2025

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Between:
1. G B Y , , ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, , STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , WEST SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTABHIPURAM POLICE STATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6.
7.
8. RESPONDENT NO.8 WAS SUOMOTO IMPLEADED AS PER C.O.DT.02.09.2025 IN W.P.NO.22723 OF 2025.
...RESPONDENT(S):

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V V Lakshmi Narayana
For the Respondents:K S Murthy Associates, P Vivek, Advocate General

In child custody matters, the paramount consideration is the child's welfare. Writ jurisdiction for habeas corpus is not for the mere enforcement of foreign orders but for ensuring the best interests of the child, acknowledging that custody with a biological parent is legally presumed lawful.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Child custody matters - Maintainability - No hard-and-fast rule exists for maintainability of habeas corpus in child custody; it depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Court must examine legality of detention at threshold - Custody with biological mother is generally lawful - Remedy of habeas corpus cannot be used as a tool for mere enforcement of foreign court directions, converting writ jurisdiction into an executing court - (Paras 31, 32, 41, 46).

(B) Principles of Child Custody - Comity of Courts vs. Welfare of Child - Comity of courts is a healthy principle for mutual respect but is not a binding obligation - Foreign court orders must yield to paramount consideration of welfare and best interests of child - Summary jurisdiction to return a child is only exercised if proceedings are initiated promptly and the child has not established roots in the new environment - (Paras 35, 38, 40, 41).

(C) Parens Patriae - Role of Court - Court acts as parent of the nation - Decisions must prioritize child's emotional, mental, and physical well-being over legalistic rights of parties - Biological aspects specifically regarding girl child's puberty, privacy, and care need to be weighed in custody assessments - (Paras 48, 51).

Facts of the case:
Parties were married, and child was born during the union. Following strained relations and subsequent move to different countries, father filed proceedings in foreign courts and obtained orders for the child’s return. Upon visiting common jurisdiction, father handed custody of child to grandparents temporarily. When child was not returned, father filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to implement foreign court orders and restore custody.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner himself voluntarily placed the child in the custody of the grandparents, thus negating the claim of illegal or unlawful detention. The Court emphasized that India is not a signatory to international child abduction conventions and reaffirmed that foreign custody orders are not per se binding and must be subordinated to the child’s best interests.

Issues: Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for the enforcement of foreign court orders regarding child custody and whether such orders override the court's discretion to assess the child's welfare under the parens patriae doctrine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a child is in the custody of a natural guardian, such custody is not illegal per se. The court is not an executing agency for foreign mandates; its overriding duty is to conduct an inquiry into the welfare of the child. The welfare of the child, rather than the principle of comity, is the paramount determinant.

Result: Writ petition disposed of; petitioner granted visitation rights via video conferencing and periodic travel, with custody remaining with the mother until the child attains majority or expresses a contrary choice.

8. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toprays that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent Authorities 3 to 5 to produce minor child (British Citizen), aged about 6 years, who is permanent resident and born citizen of UK before this Honble Court, who is at present in the unlawful custody of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, in compliance with the orders dated 18.07.2025 passed in case No.1751-3352-6208-7041, order dated 30.09.2025 passed in case No. 1756-2297-9027-9698 by the Honble Family Court of England sitting at Kingston upon Hull and order dated 02.10.2025 passed in case No. FD25P00600 by the Honble High Court of England respectively and further direct to immediately handover the custody of the said minor child to the petitioner father to enable him to take the minor child back to the jurisdiction of UK and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstance of the case. Main prayer was amended as per c.o.dt.11.12.2025 Vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.P.No.22723 of 2025.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant Interim direction, directing the Respondent No.8 to enable the petitioner and his parents to interact with the minor child namely , aged about 6 years, by way of video conference on every 3 days, pending the above said writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstance of the case. Prayer in I.A.No.1 of 2025 was amended as per c.o.dt.11.12.2025 vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.P.No.22723 of 2025.

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant permission for filing additional counter affidavit in W.P No.22723 of 2025 and to pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to order amendment of main prayer in WP.No.22723 of 2025 as below. In the light of the facts stated it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent Authorities 3 to 5 to produce minor child (British Citizen), aged about 6 years, who is permanent resident and born citizen of UK before this Hon'ble Court, who is at present in the unlawful custody of the respondent No‟s. 6, 7 & 8, in compliance with the orders dated 18.07.2025 passed in case No. 1751-3352-6208-7041, order dated 30.09.2025 passed in case No. 1756-2297-9027-9698 by the Hon‟ble Family Court of England sitting at Kingston upon Hull and order dated 02.10.2025 passed in case No. FD25P00600 by the Hon‟ble High Court of England respectively and further direct to immediately handover the custody of the said minor child to the petitioner father to enable him to take the minor child back to the jurisdiction of UK and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES

2.P VIVEK

3.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 22723/2025

ORDER: (Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela)

Happy are those who have a heart of gold and no one can claim to own this purity except that it can only be seen in children. Children are the supreme assets of the nation and the rightful place of the child in the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11009

In child custody matters, the paramount consideration is the child's welfare. Writ jurisdiction for habeas corpus is not for the mere enforcement of foreign orders but for ensuring the best interests of the child, acknowledging that custody with a biological parent is legally presumed lawful.

Cases Referred (5)