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.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 

CRM-W-677-2025

1. Application is allowed, as prayed for.

2. Email dated 19.03.2025, Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) dated 12.09.2024 and Email dated 22.04.2025, marked as Annexures A-1 to A-3, are taken on record.

CRM-W-676-2025

1. Prayer in the present application, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, is for impleading Ramndeep Kaur, mother of the child, as petitioner no.2 to pursue the main petition bearing CRWP-2949-2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the mother of the child, who is sought to be impleaded as petitioner no.2 in the main petition, is an Australian citizen, who was married with respondent no.7. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children; daughter Ekam Sidhu born on 09.05.2009 and son Kabir Singh Sidhu born on 14.08.2014. However, due to matrimonial discord between them, they got separated in 2019 and decree of divorce was granted to them vide order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Family Court at Australia. Thereafter, the parenting order was passed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division No.2) at Melbourne (hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court at Australia”) vide order dated 14.11.2022 and as per consent of the couple/parents, custody of both the children was given to the mother. However, respondent no.7-father (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent-father”) was granted visiting rights in terms of the aforesaid order. Thereafter, respondent-father, with permission of the Family Court at Australia, granted vide order dated 07.01.2025, brought both the children to India for the period from 08.01.2025 to 02.02.2025. However, the daughter was sent back to Australia in terms of the aforesaid order dated 07.01.2025, whereas the son was kept in India. After expiry of the period granted by the Family Court at Australia, the mother filed the petition before the Family Court at Australia, upon which the Family Court at Australia has passed the recovery order dated 03.03.2025 wherein the Government of India and the police authorities were requested to help in execution of the order passed by that Court and to facilitate return of the child to Australia. He submitted that at the time of passing of recovery order dated 03.03.2025, as the mother was in Australia, therefore, she sent an Email (Annexure A-1) to her father in India authorizing him to initiate legal proceedings in the Hon’ble Court in India on her behalf for facilitating the return of her son from India to Australia in terms of the recovery order passed by the Family Court at Australia. She also mentioned in her authorization Email that she was also planning to visit India for taking custody of her child Kabir Singh Sidhu. While acting as per the authorization given by her daughter, petitioner no.1 has filed the present petition in the nature of habeas corpus for search and recovery of the detenue Kabir Singh Sidhu.

On an earlier occasion, learned counsel for the respondent-father has questioned maintainability of the present petition filed by maternal grandfather of the child and not by the biological mother and, thus, the present application has been filed for impleading mother of the child as petitioner no.2 as now she has come to India for taking custody of her minor child.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Ramandeep Kaur is the biological mother of the child who had earlier authorized her father to file the present petition and, thus, the petition filed is even otherwise maintainable. However, in the interest of justice, she herself be allowed to be impleaded as petitioner no.2 in the present petition. He has also filed the amended memo of parties.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-father, however, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and again questioned maintainability of the present petition.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is infe