Back
Orders Mother to Return Four-Year-Old to US, Upholds
A Division Bench of the , comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara, has directed a mother to return her four-year-old daughter to the United States, upholding the principle of . The court allowed a petition filed by the father, Kashyap Amboju, ruling that the mother's unilateral removal of the child to India in violation of US court orders could not shift the .
A Mother's Flight and a Father's Fight
The case revolves around Yashika Nandana Amboju, born in Oregon, USA on . Her parents, Kashyap Amboju (father) and the respondent mother, married in India in 2018 and lived in the US. In , the father filed for legal separation in the . That court issued a on , barring either parent from changing the child's residence or leaving the state without permission. On , both parents agreed to a . Yet, three days later, the mother left the US with Yashika for Hyderabad, without court permission. The Oregon court responded by granting to the father on and ordering the child's return. The mother then initiated divorce and custody proceedings in Hyderabad's Family Court. In response, the father filed the present petition before the , seeking the child's production and return to the US.
Arguments from Both Sides
Counsel for the father, , argued that the mother had violated multiple orders of the US court and denied the father parenting access, including video calls. He emphasised the doctrine of , urging the High Court to defer to the competent US forum that had already passed detailed custody orders after hearing both parties.
The mother's counsel, , countered that she had filed criminal proceedings against the father in India and that the was already seized of the matter. He submitted that the father was interacting with the child through video calls and that the mother was residing with her parents in Hyderabad.
Takes Center Stage
The High Court analysed the doctrine of
as
"a
"
that encourages
"certainty of decisions and prevents multiplicity of proceedings and
."
It noted that the US court had passed four substantive orders between February and November 2025, all after hearing both parties, and that the mother had not challenged their jurisdiction or merits.
"There is no material basis to hold that the orders of the US Court lack factual basis or took into account irrelevant considerations,"
the court observed.
The Bench relied on a line of precedents, including , , and , all of which upheld the primacy of foreign court orders in similar removal cases, subject to the . The court stressed that the child's welfare is the " ," and that the child, a US citizen who had lived most of her life in Oregon, would benefit from returning to her familiar environment with both parents' care.
Beyond the Breadwinner: Recognizing a Father's Role
In a notable passage, the court addressed what it called
"
mostly veers towards the mother."
It declared:
"The father's contribution extends far beyond providing mere financial support; fathers are an indivisible part of the wholeness and wholesomeness of family life. Adopting aagainst the father, especially where the facts do not portray him as an unsuitable or undeserving parent, results in grave injustice."
The court dismissed the mother's argument that the father's new partner in the US would harm the child's welfare, calling it "speculative and self-serving." It noted that the mother had a high earning capacity and could return to the US without impediment.
The Verdict: Return or Hand Over
The High Court allowed the petition and issued a two-track direction:
If the mother is willing to return to the US: She must accompany the child to Oregon and comply with the US court's orders. The father must pay for her travel, accommodation, and living expenses while she is in the US, and must not initiate any penal action against her for violating prior orders. The mother is free to decide whether to stay in the US or return to India.
If the mother is unwilling to travel: She must hand over custody of Yashika to the father or a close family member for the child's return to the US. She will then be entitled to daily 20-minute video calls and weekend 30-minute calls.
The directions take effect from , giving the parties time to make arrangements. The court made clear that the US court retains jurisdiction over all further custody matters.
The judgment reaffirms that Indian courts will respect foreign custody orders when the foreign forum has exercised jurisdiction properly and the child's welfare is served by returning to that forum. It also sends a strong message that parents cannot unilaterally violate court orders to gain a tactical advantage in custody battles.
