SC Slams Mother for Misleading Courts, Hands Interim Custody of Minor to Father

The Supreme Court, on September 16, 2025, allowed a man to have interim custody of his six-year-old son as his wife left for the United Kingdom in 2021 without informing him and left the child with her parents.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi expressed displeasure and deprecated the conduct of the mother, saying she never intended the child to meet his father and honour the court orders.

"The judicial system in India as well as the UK had been taken for a ride by the mother for the reasons known best to her. Be that as it may, the entire whirlpool of litigation has been set into motion by the parents, wherein the children are being pulled in and at this stage, we are concerned with the welfare of the child and certainly, in our view, such conduct is clearly not in favour of the welfare,'' the bench said.

Court directed handing over the custody of the child to the father, a resident of Noida, from the wife's parents residing in Sonipat, within 15 days. It allowed video calls to the mother and visitation rights to maternal grandparents.

Having gone through the facts, the bench said, "We are constrained to observe that the present case reflects a deep-rooted conflict between the mother and father, arising from their divergent intentions regarding staying together and raising their children in India. This discord has not only strained their marital relationship but has also adversely impacted their children".

The bench pointed out that the factum of leaving the child with the grandparents could only be unveiled when the proceedings were set in motion on filing of the writ in the nature of habeas corpus, wherein the interim custody of the child had been directed to be handed over to the father, looking to the best interest of the child.

In such circumstances, where the mother is staying in London with the daughter and the son is staying with grandparents, despite the availability of father, who has sufficient means of sustenance to undertake the well-being of the child, the best interest of the child needs to be ascertained, the bench said.

Court also noted the father was a qualified engineer having Master’s degree in Computer Science with a post-graduate diploma in Business Administration. He was also employed in Singapore, the United Kingdom, andthe US for the time being. Thus, his academic credentials and professional competence cannot be doubted, it said.

"Similarly, looking to other factors, his earning is sufficient, and he is owner of residential flat in Sector-70, Noida and currently residing there with his mother and younger sister. In our considered opinion, Noida is more suitably located than Sonipat, having better educational institutes, therefore, in our view, welfare of the child would be served if the interim custody of the child is given to the father who is also the natural guardian,'' the bench said.

It also directed the father or the mother of the child to file appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before the competent court within a period of one month. As the child was born in the UK, the court said, the issue of his citizenship would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The parties got married on November 29, 2010, and subsequently a daughter and a son were born to them. The father alleged that the mother left India for the United Kingdom on May 08, 2021, with both children. On June 03, 2021, he lodged a formal complaint before the Police.

The father approached the UK High Court and separately filed a divorce petition in Noida. The UK HC ordered the mother to make the children available for video calls with the father. However, the child was not made available.

Having developed suspicion that the child was not in the UK, he filed a habeas corpus petition in 2021. On September 16, 2021, when the father visited the residence of his father-in-law, he found the child there. However, he was attacked, leading to injuries. The High Court directed handing over the custody to the father.

Meanwhile, the Family Court in the UK on December 21, 2021, passed a decree of divorce in the petition filed by the mother, though the said decree is under challenge in an appeal filed by the father.

On the contrary, the Family Court at Jind, Haryana, by order on September 20, 2022, had granted ex parte decree of divorce in favour of the father in the divorce petition filed by him, which has been put to challenge in the appeal filed by the mother.

The UK HC also noted crude subterfuge played by the mother in not disclosing that the son was in India.

On May 08, 2024, the son was called for a discussion in the Chamber by the judges. "Upon interaction and looking to his age, which was approximately 5 years, we found that Master K was not in a position to substantially express anything for anyone,'' the bench said.

Court pointed out that the mother had obtained a divorce from the Family Court in London; she had challenged the divorce decree granted by the Family Court in Jind, Haryana, in India. Conversely, the father, having secured a divorce from the Family Court in Jind, India, had contested the divorce decree passed by the UK Family Court.

In essence, while both parties seek divorce, they refuse to accept the decrees granted by courts in different jurisdictions and continue to challenge them, which they are legally entitled to do. Attempts at mediation have failed, the Supreme Court noted.

"It appears that both parties wish to obtain divorce only from the court of the jurisdiction in which they currently reside. This is not merely a clash of egos, but prima-facie, reflects a concerning mindset that may ultimately come at the cost of the welfare of the minor children,'' the bench said.

Court highlighted it was the mother's primary duty to inform the father about the child location, which was not discharged. It was also her duty to disclose to UK High Court that the son is not with her in the proceedings initiated by father, but the said disclosure was also not made, though only at a later stage, i.e., after father filed the application seeking return of her children before UK High Court and a habeas corpus petition before High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Case Title: Komal Krishan Arora & Ors Vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors

Judgment Date: September 16, 2025

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi