Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.
Dr. Shreyas Dilip Mandre - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3950 of 2023
Decided On : 29-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Avani Bansal a/w. Ms. Parika Singh, Aryan Chourasia and Rishi Thakur
For the Respondent : Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. PP, Mr. Wesley Menezes a/w. Waqaar Pathan, Hemali Mehta Tejani and Yash Athre i/b. Saamya Partners

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Avani Bansal, Ms. Parika Singh, Aryan Chourasia, Rishi Thakur
For the Respondents: Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Mr. Wesley Menezes, Waqaar Pathan, Hemali Mehta Tejani, Yash Athre

Child's welfare paramount in custody disputes; mother's custody presumed lawful; foreign return orders unenforceable where mother cannot relocate, risking child-mother separation; practicalities and child's preference considered alongside stability.

Headnote:(A) Writ of Habeas Corpus - Child custody - International relocation - Paramount consideration is welfare and best interest of child - Custody with biological mother presumed lawful in absence of exceptional circumstances - Foreign court orders declaring child habitually resident and directing return do not render ongoing custody unlawful per se - Practical impossibility for mother to secure valid stay in foreign jurisdiction and risk of child losing maternal contact outweigh enforcement of return orders. (Paras 19, 20-22, 30-32)

(B) Child custody disputes - Child's expressed preference - Interaction with child to ascertain desire relevant but not determinative - Court to consider all circumstances including stability, education, parental health, support network and feasibility of relocation for both parents. (Paras 19, 25, 28)

(C) Parental responsibility - Welfare paramount over forum shopping or first strike - Refusal to provide documentation for child's passport renewal or visa support raises apprehension of acting against child's best interest - Visitation and contact rights to non-custodial parent via video or in person to maintain psychological bond. (Paras 13, 26-27, 32, 37)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner-father sought habeas corpus to produce minor child and direct return to foreign jurisdiction per orders of foreign family court, following mother's removal of child after her visa revocation notice amid marital discord. Child US citizen, previously resident in foreign jurisdiction; mother filed divorce and custody petition locally.

Findings of Court:
Child interviewed, expressed desire to stay with mother; welfare served by continued custody with mother in India where stable education available; father permitted visitation; underlying custody matters remitted to family court.

Issues: Whether child's custody with mother unlawful warranting habeas relief and enforcement of foreign return orders; interplay of child's welfare, habitual residence declarations, parental practicalities and foreign comity.

Ratio Decidendi: Custody with mother lawful; child's best interest prioritizes emotional stability, avoiding separation risk and ensuring contact with both parents; unique facts where neither parent viable in country of child's citizenship preclude return analogous to prior precedents; family court to adjudicate substantive custody.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition for habeas corpus and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. illegal removal violating uk orders; welfare in uk (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. visa revocation forced departure; welfare with mother india (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. child's preference to stay with mother india (Para 19)
5. mother's custody presumed lawful despite foreign orders (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. lahari distinguished; usa return impossible (Para 23 , 24)
7. best interest over child's wish in circumstances (Para 25)
8. visitation essential; alienation considered but wish noted (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
9. practicalities favor custody with mother in india (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
10. dismiss petition; refer to family court (Para 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. Heard Ms. Avani Bansal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Wesley Menezes, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned APP for the State-Respondent No.1.

2. The petition is filed with the following two main prayers(a) and (b):

(a) “That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ, thereby directing the Respondent No.2/Respondents to produce the Petitioner’s Child ‘N’ before this Hon’ble Court forthwith;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, thereby directing the Respondent No.2/Respondents that all steps be taken by the Respondent No.2/Respondents to return the child to the United Kingdom as per the orders dated 20/10/2023 and 17/11/2023 passed by Hon’ble Family Court of Justice, Family Division England, United Kingdom, in case No. FD 23 P 00382, who continues in the illegal custody of the Respondent No.2.”

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 got married on16.06.2008 in Mumbai. After the marriage, both of them shifted to Cambridge MA USA. Their son ‘N’ was born on 24.12.2014 in USA. In 2014, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 had become US citizens. Their son was born in USA, therefore, by birth he is also a citizen of USA. The Petitioner got a job in UK in the year 2019 and, therefore, the family shifted to UK on 30.07.2019 on a Tier Work-1 VISA. ‘N’ started going to school at Burton Green, Kenilworth. The parties purchased a house at 147 Duggins Lane, Coventry, CV- 049GP and started residing there since 01.03.2021. Differences arose between the couple. The Petitioner shifted to a different residence at Turning Way, Cambridge, UK.

(ii) It is the case of the Petitioner that, ‘N’ told his teacher that he was afraid of visiting India. The Petitioner made an application for child care arrangement including an interim care plan that required interim custody of ‘N’ and prohibition of International travel with ‘N’. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the meantime, the Respondent No.2 took ‘N’ with her to India without the Petitioner’s knowledge and consent. The Petitioner approached the High Court of Justice, Family Division, England UK pointing out the fact that the Respondent No.2 had taken their son to India without his knowledge and permission. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the various orders passed by the said Court in those proceedings.

(iii) In the meantime, the Respondent No.2 had preferred Petition No. A-2394 of 2023 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, for divorce along with an application restraining the Petitioner from taking away custody of the child.

In this background, the present petition is filed for the aforementioned reliefs.

SUBMISSIONS OF MS. AVANI BANSAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasized that the Respondent No.2 had left UK without informing the Petitioner. There are various orders passed by the High Court of Justice, Family Division, UK giving specific directions to the Respondent No.2 to bring back the child. The Respondent No.2 has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document