Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1123
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 9497 OF 2021]
KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 325 OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 9497 OF 2021
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 124-125 OF 2024
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 9497 OF 2021
WITH
SLP (CRL) NO. 17530 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Criminal Appeal No. _______ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 9497 of 2021)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
1. Leave granted.
Date: 2025.09.17
10:50:33 IST
Reason:
1
2. In an ongoing prolonged discord of ties between husband –
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Chugh (hereinafter referred as
‘father’ ) and wife – Latika Arora @ Latika Chugh (hereinafter
referred as ‘mother’ ) who got married on 29.11.2010, leading to
further dispute on visitation over their two children, minor
daughter ‘Miss N’ (currently staying with mother in England and
Wales) and minor son ‘Master K’ (currently staying with
grandfather – appellant No. 1), the writ petition seeking writ in the
nature of habeas corpus came to be filed by father on an unhealthy
note before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
alleging illegal custody of children with appellants.
3. The case of the father in brief is that, the mother left India for
United Kingdom on 08.05.2021 with both the children without
informing him and his consent. The father being clueless about the
whereabouts of his children, made an attempt to figure out the
same through child helpline. Through correspondence and enquiry
dated 01.06.2021, the child helpline informed that his children are
not in India. It was further informed that as per his children and
statement of wife, they are safe, secure and the wife is doing job
over there. The said information was furnished by the child
helpline indicating that the case is already pending in the Court.
2
Followed thereafter, the father on 03.06.2021 lodged a formal
complaint before the Police to know the exact whereabouts of his
children.
4. Meanwhile, the mother filed an application for non-
molestation and occupation order against father in UK on
07.06.2021. The father also filed a divorce petition on 05.07.2021
in Noida and simultaneously, moved an application invoking
inherent jurisdiction of the UK High Court of Justice, Family
Division (in short “UK High Court” ), in relation to children,
contending that the mother wrongly removed the children from
India without his knowledge and consent. It was also asserted that
the children are habitual residents of India and accordingly, the
father sought their summary return to India with a further prayer
to make children ward of the Court meanwhile. He further sought
range of prohibitory step orders, including location of the children
and passport.
5. The above petition came for hearing without notice on
13.07.2021 before Mrs. Justice Judd , who passed a location order
against the mother. In compliance, the Tipstaff located mother and
Miss N and later their passport and travel documents were seized.
The mother was served with the notice of proceedings on
3
15.07.2021. The next hearing took place on 26.07.2021 before
Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot , who inter-alia passed the following
directions –
(a) Mother is prevented from changing the location of the
children without informing the father’s solicitor 7 days in
advance and from taking the children outside the jurisdiction
of England and Wales pending the conclusion of proceedings;
(b) Mother to make available the children to spend time with
the Father by way of video and/or telephone calls every
Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 18:00 GMT;
(c) Mother is prohibited from applying for a British passport
or any other passport for the children pending the conclusion
of the proceedings, without the consent of the Father .
6. Following the directives, the father made video calls at 18:00
GMT on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, however, as claimed by
father, Master K was either asleep or unavailable most of the times
for flimsy reasons stated by the mother. All the calls of Master K
were always muted and his video background was also always
hidden. As further contended, the call was portrayed to be
originated from UK, however, the same was from India and in a
collusive manner, the mother with the assistance of her parents,
4
deliberately kept father away from Master K and avoided all sorts
of communication with him. She also did not disclose to him about
his whereabouts despite insistence. When the suspicion grew that
the child is not with mother in UK, and having all the reasons to
believe so, the father was compelled to file the habeas corpus
petition before the High Court on 10.09.2021. It is also important
to note that, amidst all of this, the mother filed a divorce petition
in the UK on 31.07.2021.
7. Curiously, on 16.09.2021, when the father visited the
residence of his father-in-law along with his brother, sister and
mother, to his utter surprise, he found Master K playing in the
locality with his mother-in-law. When the father tried to meet him,
the mother-in-law denied that he is Master K and took him back
from him. At the same time, the father-in-law (appellant no. 1) and
appellant no. 3 (mother’s brother) came there with neighbours,
leading to physical altercation, wherein, the father suffered
th th
fractures in 5 and 6 rib. Thereafter, an application for
preponement of hearing was filed before the High Court, and the
matter was taken up on 24.09.2021, when the following order was
passed: -
“Crl.M.No.1175 of 2021
5
The main case is fixed for 14.10.2021.
Prayer is for pre-poning the date of hearing.
Notice of the application.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf
of respondent – State of Haryana.
For the reasons recorded in the application, which is
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The hearing in
the case is pre-poned to 28.09.2021.
Crl.M.No.1173 of 2021
Prayer is for placing on record additional affidavit of
applicant/petitioner. Allowed, as prayed for.
Crl.M.No.1174 of 2021
By means of this application, the petitioner prays for
appointment of a Warrant Officer to produce minor child Master K
aged about two and half years, who is stated to be in illegal
custody of respondent Nos.5 & 6.
Respondent No. 4 is the wife of the petitioner. Respondent
No.5 is his father-in-law. Respondent No.6 is his brother-in-law.
The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was
solemnized on 29.11.2010. From this marriage they have two
children namely Miss N (daughter) aged about ten years and
Master K (son) aged about 2 ½ years. Due to matrimonial discord
between the couple, respondent No.4 left the matrimonial home in
March, 2020 without informing the petitioner, who was abroad at
that time. She (respondent No.4) took along her both the minor
children and went to her parental home in Sonepat. When the
petitioner came back to India in October 2020 he visited
respondent No.4 and requested her to return with the children but
she refused. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Jind on
03.02.2021 which is pending.
The petitioner filed the petition (CRWP-8954-2021) for
issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus seeking
directions to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 i.e., Superintendent of Police,
Sonepat, and the SHO, P.S Shivaji Colony, Sonepat to get released
minor children from the illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 to 6
and produce them before this Court. Notice of motion was issued
to respondent Nos.4 & 5 for 14.10.2021.
The petitioner and respondent No.4 had been living and
working in U.K from 2010 to 2018. They have permission for
6
indefinite stay there. The petitioner filed an online application
before the High Court Justice Family Division, London for an
inherent jurisdiction order in relation to the minor children Miss N
and Master K seeking relief of summary return of the children to
India, for location and passport orders and for a range of other
orders to ensure the well-being of the children. Respondent No.4
appeared before the Court in London through VC and stated that
she had removed the children from India without the knowledge
or consent of the petitioner because she did not know his
whereabouts. She also agreed to make the children available for
telephone and/or video contact with the petitioner as may be
directed.
Vide order dated 26.07.2021, High Court Justice Family
Division, London directed respondent No.4 to make the children
available to spend time with the petitioner by way of video and/or
telephone calls on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at
18.00 GMT.
Pursuant to the order, the petitioner was on video
conferencing (zoom calls) with his daughter and son. However,
during those calls, the petitioner found that most of the times his
son was half asleep. Sometimes respondent No.4 stated that he
was asleep. Whenever he spoke to his son he was muted. The
background was always hidden. Because of this the petitioner
became suspicious of whereabouts of his son. On 16.09.2021, the
petitioner, his brother Sunil Chugh, his sister-Poonam Rani and
his mother Kamlesh Chugh visited residence of respondent Nos.5
& 6 at Sonepat at about 5.00 p.m. to clear their doubts about the
whereabouts, well-being and welfare of the minor children. The
petitioner was shocked to see that his son Master K was playing
with his maternal grand-mother Ms. Sushma Arora. On seeing the
petitioner his son ran towards him. However, his maternal grand-
mother snatched him away and told the petitioner that the child
was not his son. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 & 6 arrived at the
spot along with their neighbours. The petitioner was physically
assaulted. He suffered 10 serious injuries and was referred to
BPS Hospital, Khanpur. CT scan of his chest revealed fractures of
th th
the anterior ends of right 5 and 6 ribs. A copy of the medical
record is Annexure P-3. The petitioner's statement was recorded
by respondent No.3-SHO, P.S Shivaji Colony, Sonepat but despite
his having suffered grievous injuries, no FIR was registered.
Sh. Anil Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the 2 ½ year old son of the petitioner is presently in the illegal
7
custody of respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Respondent No.4 has gone to
U.K. leaving him behind. The petitioner apprehends that his son
may be removed to an undisclosed destination abroad or any
other place beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, respondent No. 2-Superintendent
of Police, Sonepat is requested to immediately depute a senior
Police Official to visit the residence of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 at
#25, Shivaji Colony, Sonepat, locate the whereabouts of the son
of the petitioner and satisfy that he is in the safe custody of
respondent No.5 and 6. The passport of Master K be taken into
possession and retained in safe custody of respondent No. 2. The
concerned police official would also ensure that the child is
produced before the Court on the next date of hearing through
Video Conferencing mode from the residence of respondent No. 5
and 6.
List on 28.09.2021. To be shown in the Urgent List.
Meanwhile, Respondents No. 5 and 6 are directed not to
remove/ take away Master K - the son of the petitioner to any
place beyond the borders of District Sonepat.
A copy of this petition and the connected application be
served on respondent Nos.5 & 6 through respondent No.2.
A copy of this order be provided Dasti to Ld. State counsel
for onward transmission to concerned quarters for compliance. ”
8. As such, Superintendent of Police, Sonipat was requested to
depute a senior police official to visit the residence of appellant
nos. 1 & 3 to locate the whereabouts of Master K and satisfy that
he was in the safe custody. It was directed that the passport of
Master K be taken into possession and retained in safe custody.
Master K was also to be produced before the High Court through
video conferencing from the residence of the appellant nos. 1 & 3
on 28.09.2021. When the matter was taken up on 28.09.2021, the
8
High Court passed the following order, which is also relevant,
hence, reproduced as under: -
“ Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated
24.9.2021, the police officials visited the house of respondents
No. 4 to 6 at Sonipat. The minor child Master K was present in
the house alongwith respondents No. 5 and 6.
Respondents No. 5 and 6 have appeared alongwith minor
child Master K in Court today through video conferencing.
Mr. Surender Singh, learned AAG Haryana states that Mr.
Hans Raj, DSP who was deputed to visit the house of
respondents No. 5 and 6 has specifically inquired about the
passport of minor child Master K. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have
stated that the passport is not in their possession and they are
not aware about the passport.
Mr. Sandhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
respondents No.4 to 6. He states that respondents are trying to
locate the passport. As and when the same is located, it would
immediately be handed over to DSP concerned who is inquiring
the matter.
Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for petitioner has stressed
that if the minor child Master K is presently in the custody of
respondents No. 5 and 6, then interim custody of minor child be
handed over to him as he is the natural guardian.
Mr. Sandhu prays for time to address arguments. He
undertakes on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6 that they would
not remove/take away minor son of petitioner Master K to any
place beyond the borders of District Sonipat during pendency of
this petition.
Adjourned to 1.10.2021.
To be shown in urgent list. ”
9. Thereafter, the counsel for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 appearing
before the High Court had undertaken that they would not
remove/take away Master K beyond the borders of district Sonipat
during pendency of the habeas corpus petition. Later, the
9
undertaking was acknowledged, and the hearing was concluded.
The High Court vide order impugned dated 16.11.2021 allowed the
habeas corpus petition and passed the following directions: -
“ Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, in my
view:
(i) it would not be in the interest of Master K (sic) to be
permitted to travel to U.K. pending a determination of the various
disputes between the parties in the Courts in U.K. In U.K.
respondent No.4 would have to single handedly care for Master
K (sic) and her daughter Miss N (sic), which may be difficult in
view of the demands of her career. In India, apart from his father
- the petitioner, Master K (sic) can enjoy the care, love and
affection of his grandparents and other members of the family
both on the paternal and maternal side. Though born in U.K.
Master K (sic) has been in India since 29.06.2019 (He was a
little over four months then. He is now about two years eight
months. His date of birth being 15.02.2019);
(ii) pending a final determination of the issues of custody
between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in a properly
instituted proceeding, the best interest of Master K (sic) would
be served if his custody is handed over to the petitioner.
Petitioner's mother (paternal grandmother of Master K (sic)
resides with the petitioner and would be available to care for him.
Respondents No. 4 to 6 are directed to hand over Master K
th
(sic) to the petitioner on 6 December, 2021. Respondents No. 5
and 6 would take Master K (sic) to the Court of Chief Judicial
th
Magistrate, Sonepat on 6 December, 2021 at 10.00 AM where
petitioner along with his mother would be present. Master K (sic)
would be handed over to the petitioner in the presence of CJM
Sonepat. Respondents No. 5 and 6 would not directly or
indirectly hinder or obstruct the petitioner from leaving the place
with Master K.
Once the custody of Master K (sic) is handed over to him,
the petitioner would make available Master K (sic) to spend time
with respondent No. 4 (mother) by way of video and/or
telephonic calls every day.
Considering that Master K (sic) has been living with
respondents No. 5 and 6 for the last over one year when
10
respondent No. 4 started residing there along the children ( Miss
N (sic) and Master K (sic) petitioner would also facilitate
telephone/ video contact between Master K (sic) and his
maternal grandparents at least thrice a week.
As Master K (sic) would take some time to settle in the new
place and would initially need greater care and affection to make
him comfortable, the petitioner would not travel abroad for six
months from the date the custody of Master K (sic) is handed
over to him. ”
10. The said order has been assailed by the mother, her father
and her brother by filing the present appeal. In the proceeding
dated 13.12.2021 notice was issued and the stay was granted on
execution of the order of the High Court subject to the condition
that Master K will not be taken abroad. On perusal of submissions
and records, it appears that the Family Court in UK vide order
dated 21.12.2021 passed a decree of divorce in the petition filed by
the mother, though, the said decree is under challenge in appeal
filed by father. On the contrary, the Family Court at Jind, Haryana,
by order dated 20.09.2022 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 mother. Amidst all
this cross-country litigation and pendency of the present appeal
this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 granted visitation right for
Master K to the father on every Sunday between 12 to 5 p.m. Be
that as it may, it further appears that after conclusion of the
11
hearing of the case before the High Court on 14.10.2021 and prior
to pronouncement of judgment on 16.11.2021, the judgment dated
12.11.2021 passed by the UK High Court in final hearing of the
application preferred by father seeking return of his children was
not available before the High Court.
11. In the said backdrop, the aforesaid judgment assumes
significance and is necessary to be referred to. In the said
judgment, the UK High Court has referenced the previous orders
passed and in particular, recorded the conduct of the mother along
with conduct of father as per the averments made by the mother.
In paras 39 and 40 of the said judgment observations made against
the mother are as under:
“ 39. It has since been brought to the attention of this court and
the father that Master K did not leave India with his mother
and sister. As stated above, Master K has been in the care
of his maternal grandparents in Sonipat since 8 May 2021.
It is inconceivable that Mrs Justice Arbuthnot would have
issued the order in those terms had she known that Master
K was not in the UK with his mother, but rather in India
with his maternal grandparents. The order refers to the
fact that the mother “confirmed that she removed the
children from India” and agreed to “make the children
available for telephone and/or video contact”. I underline
and highlight the plural form of “children”. Mrs Justice
Arbuthnot ordered that both of the children, Miss N and
Master K, be made available for video contact calls at
18:00 GMT. 18:00 GMT translates to 22:30 in Sonipat
during the summer and, with the end of BST, now
translates to 23:30. She would never have made such an
order had she known that Master K was in fact in India.
12
40. It is clear from the above that the mother lured the court
into error by failing to disclose that she had only removed
Miss N to the UK and that Master K remained in India. This
crude subterfuge, which was always going to be found out,
does the mother no credit at all. ”
emphasis supplied
12. On the basis of the statement of Miss N , apprehension
regarding father has been recorded in the said judgment, however,
the Court proceeded to decide the issue of ‘habitual residence’ and
applying the ‘test of sufficiency of integration’, observed that Miss
N has sufficiently reintegrated so as to become the habitual
resident of UK as she is staying since May 2021 continuously.
Though for Master K , the Court noted that Master K immediate
after birth visited the India and has mostly spent his life there. He
cannot be said to be a habitual resident. The UK High Court
disposing-of the case, passed the following the order: -
“ 67. Since June 2019 neither parent has behaved well towards
the other. The father has harassed and bullied the mother
in the ways I have described. The mother has behaved
deceptively and high-handedly. She has not conducted her
case with propriety for which I had to admonish her at the
start of the case.
68. This poor behaviour must not distract me from my
essential task, which is to determine what is in the best
interests of Miss N. I am satisfied that it would be in the
best interests of Miss N that she should be reunited with
Master K and that they should be brought up together
under the primary care of their mother in London. The
wishes and feelings of Miss N very strongly favour that.
Miss N enjoys a social network in London, and is well
settled here. The mother wishes to become economically
13
independent and has convinced me that this is more easily
achievable in London where there are more facilities to be
able to balance work with her responsibilities to the
children. It makes little odds whether the mother primarily
cares for the children in London or in some city in India far
away from the father’s abode. I consider it likely that the
father will not stay working in India for long. He has been
working in the USA for Credit Suisse and, although he
says that he is intending to return to India permanently, I
sensed a degree of forensic positioning during his answers
on this subject. If the father returned to work in the USA,
then it makes absolutely no difference to him whether the
children are under the primary care of the mother in
England or in India.
69. I have concluded that the appropriate course is for me to
adjourn the father’s application for the return of Miss N to
India pending the decision of Mr Justice Singh Sidhu about
the future of Master K.
70. My order will contain a respectful request to Mr Justice
Singh Sidhu to consider allowing the mother to relocate
Master K to London to be reunited with his sister, provided,
of course, that he is satisfied that such a disposal would
be in his best interests. ”
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the UK High Court in
para 72 ordered as under: -
“ 72. My order will therefore provide that:
i) The father’s application for the return of Miss N to
India shall stand adjourned;
ii) The father’s application that the children be made
wards of court is dismissed.
iii) Miss N shall live with the mother and have contact
with her father;
iv) If the court in India permits Master K to relocate to
London, he shall live with the mother and have
contact with his father;
v) In the event that the court in India permits Master K
to relocate to London, the father’s return application
shall stand dismissed;
14
vi) If by 12 February 2022 the court in India has not
permitted Master K to relocate to London, the father’s
return application shall be restored before me;
vii) In any event the travel documents of the mother and
Miss N are to be returned to the mother; and
viii) A copy of this judgment shall be made available at
the earliest opportunity to Mr Justice Singh Sidhu.
14. In view of the foregoing factual backdrop, in our viewpoint, it
is required to be seen that whether the directions as issued by the
High Court warrant interference in this appeal or not. It is further
required to be looked into whether the interim custody of the
Master K be continued with appellant no. 1 till final determination
of the issues between the parties and whether without proper
instituted proceedings of custody of Master K , continuation of his
custody with grandfather would be in his best interest or it should
be with the father.
15. During pendency of the present appeal, we deemed it proper
to have an interaction with the child to gain his inclination and
vide order dated 08.05.2024, Master K was called for discussion
in Chamber. 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, and
therefore, the matter posted for final hearing.
15
16. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and to answer the questions as posed hereinabove, we are
constrained to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of
1
‘Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali ’ , where this Court was
dealing with question qua jurisdiction of Family Court, Hyderabad
to decide the application for custody of minor children (both US
citizens), filed by their mother who had come to India for attending
her grandmother’s funeral. The said application was filed by
concealing the application for custody already filed in Court in US
by her. Balancing the doctrine of comity of Courts with the best
interest of the child, this Court on the issue of whether it was in
the best interest of the children to return to US observed as under:
-
“ 42. The essence of the judgment in Nithya Anand Raghavan v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454, is that the doctrines of
comity of courts, intimate connect, orders passed by foreign
courts having jurisdiction in the matter regarding custody of the
minor child, citizenship of the parents and the child, etc. cannot
override the consideration of the best interest and the welfare of
the child and that the direction to return the child to the foreign
jurisdiction must not result in any physical, mental,
psychological, or other harm to the child.
xx xx xx
49. The crucial factors which have to be kept in mind by the
courts for gauging the welfare of the children equally for the
parent's can be inter alia, delineated, such as (1) maturity and
judgment; (2) mental stability; (3) ability to provide access to
1
(2019) 7 SCC 311
16
schools; (4) moral character; (5) ability to provide continuing
involvement in the community; (6) financial sufficiency and last
but not the least the factors involving relationship with the child,
as opposed to characteristics of the parent as an individual.
50. While dealing with the younger tender year doctrine, Janusz
Korczar a famous Polish-Jewish educator & children's author
observed:
“children cannot wait too long and they are not people of
tomorrow, but are people of today. They have a right to be
taken seriously, and to be treated with tenderness and
respect. They should be allowed to grow into whoever they
are meant to be — the unknown person inside each of them
is our hope for the future.”
Child rights may be limited but they should not be ignored or
eliminated since children are in fact persons wherein all
fundamental rights are guaranteed to them keeping in mind the
best interest of the child and the various other factors which play
a pivotal role in taking decision to which reference has been
made taking note of the parental autonomy which courts do not
easily discard.
17. Similarly, this Court in ‘Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh
2
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others ’ , while allowing the writ
petition under Article 32 filed by the mother seeking issuance of
writ in the nature of habeas corpus to trace and produce her minor
children (both residents of US) and deliver their custody so as to
repatriate them back to US, reiterated the paramount importance
best interest of child and observed as thus: -
“91. While considering the competing rights of natural
guardianships vis-à-vis the welfare of the child, the test for
consideration by the court was held to be; what would best serve
the welfare and interest of the child. Referring to the earlier
decisions in Sumedha Nagpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2000) 9
2
(2023) 12 SCC 472
17
SCC 745; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC
840; Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42
and Muthuswami Chettiar v. K.M. Chinna Muthusami Moopanar,
1934 SCC OnLine Mad 280, it was also held that the welfare of
child prevails over the legal rights of the parties while deciding
the custody of minor child. The observations made in the
judgment in this regard are as follows: [See Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv
Baijal, (2009) 7 SCC 322, SCC p. 325, paras 14-15]
“14. The question for our consideration is, whether in
the present scenario would it be proper to direct the
appellant to hand over the custody of the minor child
Anagh to the respondent.
15. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the
father is the guardian of the minor child until he is
found unfit to be the guardian of the minor female
child. In deciding such questions, the welfare of the
minor child is the paramount consideration and such a
question cannot be decided merely based upon the
rights of the parties under the law. [See Sumedha
Nagpal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2000) 9 SCC 745, SCC
p. 747, paras 2 & 5.]
92. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC
840], this Court has observed that : (SCC p. 847, para 7)
“7. … the principle on which the court should decide
the fitness of the guardian mainly depends on two
factors : (i) the father's fitness or otherwise to be the
guardian, and (ii) the interests of the minors.”
93. This Court considering the welfare of the child also stated
that : (SCC p. 855, para 15)
“15. … The children are not mere chattels : nor are they
mere playthings for their parents. Absolute right of
parents over the destinies and the lives of their
children has, in the modern changed social conditions,
yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human
beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced
manner to be useful members of the society….”
94. In Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (supra), this
Court has observed that whenever a question arises before a
court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to
be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties
18
but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best
serve the interest and welfare of the child.
95. The question as to how the court would determine what is
best in the interest of the child was considered McGrath (Infants),
In re [McGrath (Infants), In re, (1893) 1 Ch 143 (CA)] , and it was
observed by Lindley, L.J., as follows : (Ch p. 148)
“… The dominant matter for the consideration of the
Court is the welfare of the child. But the welfare of a
child is not to be measured by money only, nor by
physical comfort only. The word welfare must be taken
in its widest sense. The moral and religious welfare of
the child must be considered as well as its physical
well-being. Nor can the ties of affection be
disregarded.”
96. The issue as to the welfare of the child again arose “O” (An
Infant), In re [“O” (An Infant), In re, 1965 Ch 23 (CA)] , where
Harman, L.J., stated as follows : (Ch p. 29)
“… It is not, I think, really in dispute that in all cases
the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child;
but that, of course, does not mean you add up shillings
and pence, or situation or prospects, or even religion.
What you look at is the whole background of the child's
life, and the first consideration you have to take into
account when you are looking at his welfare is : who
are his parents and are they ready to do their duty?”
97. The question as to what would be the dominating factors
while examining the welfare of a child was considered in Walker
v. Walker & Harrison [Walker v. Walker & Harrison, 1981 New
Ze Recent Law 257] and it was observed that while the material
considerations have their place, they are secondary matters.
More important are stability and security, loving and
understanding care and guidance, and warm and
compassionate relationships which are essential for the
development of the child's character, personality and talents. It
was stated as follows:
“Welfare is an all-encompassing word. It includes
material welfare; both in the sense of adequacy of
resources to provide a pleasant home and a
comfortable standard of living and in the sense of an
adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due
personal pride are maintained. However, while
19
material considerations have their place they are
secondary matters. More important are the stability
and the security, the loving and understanding care
and guidance, the warm and compassionate
relationships that are essential for the full development
of the child's own character, personality and talents.”
98. In the context of consideration of an application by a parent
seeking custody of a child through the medium of a habeas
corpus proceeding, it has been stated in American
Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol. 39 as follows:
“… An application by a parent, through the medium of
a habeas corpus proceeding, for custody of a child is
addressed to the discretion of the court, and custody
may be withheld from the parent where it is made
clearly to appear that by reason of unfitness for the
trust or of other sufficient causes the permanent
interests of the child would be sacrificed by a change
of custody. In determining whether it will be for the
best interest of a child to award its custody to the
father or mother, the court may properly consult the
child, if it has sufficient judgment.”
99. Thus, it is well established that in issuing the writ of habeas
corpus in the case of minors, the jurisdiction which the Court
exercises is an inherent jurisdiction as distinct from a statutory
jurisdiction conferred by any particular provision in any special
statute. In other words, the employment of the writ of habeas
corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but independent
of any statute. The jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in
such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force
of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor
ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result
sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction
of a court of equity. The primary object of a habeas corpus
petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose
custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced.
In a habeas corpus proceeding brought by one parent against the
other for the custody of their child, the Court has before it the
question of the rights of the parties as between themselves, and
also has before it, if presented by the pleadings and the
evidence, the question of the interest which the State, as parens
patriae, has in promoting the best interests of the child. ”
20
3
18. Recently, this Court in ‘Neethu B. Vs. Rajesh Kumar ’ , was
dealing with a review petition preferred by mother on the ground
of deteriorating mental health of child due to order of handing over
custody by this Court to the father. The same was corroborated by
medical reports on record. While allowing the review petition and
granting custody back to mother, this Court observed as thus –
“ 15. The core and inalienable standard is the paramount
consideration of the child's welfare, which is affected by an array
of factors, is ever evolving and cannot be confined in a
straitjacket. Therefore, each case has to be dealt with on the
basis of its unique facts and take into account any change in
circumstances which have an impact on the quality of a child's
upbringing.
xx xx xx
25. ….The factors defining the best interests of a child are
multiple and range from quality education, a nurturing family
environment, healthy worldly experiences, provision of basic
amenities of life, meeting of financial requirements, access to a
friendly social system to imparting of spiritual and cultural
learnings. The list is naturally not an exhaustive one. However,
the essential feature is that a secure, supportive and loving
family forms the bedrock of a healthy childhood experience and
helps one grow into a balanced, positive and confident adult.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and after considering the
facts as outlined above, 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
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1435
21
has not only strained their marital relationship but has also
adversely impacted their children. It is evident from the conduct of
both parties that, although the mother has obtained a divorce from
the Family Court in London, she has 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—has 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. 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. While we refrain from making any definitive comment on
the intentions of the parties, the circumstances compel us to focus
on how best the welfare and interests of the children can be
safeguarded.
20. In the said sequel, after going through the judgment dated
12.11.2021 of the UK High Court, it reveals that when the
22
statement of Miss N was taken, the reflection of hate against father
cannot been ruled out. It is also to be noted that Miss N is staying
with mother since long and the father is staying in India, then how
far such hate may be good for the father. If we look the conduct of
the mother, it can safely be observed that while leaving Master K
in India, it was her primary duty to inform the father, which was
not discharged. It was also her duty to disclose to UK High Court
that Master K 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. We are constrained to express
our displeasure at such conduct of the mother and deprecate the
same. It is to be noted that, due to such conduct, the father was
deprived of having virtual meetings with Master K despite orders
from UK High Court and ultimately he had to file the habeas
corpus petition when the suspicion brewed. Master K throughout
was living with appellant no. 1 and father was deliberately not
informed about the same despite the Court orders. As such, it
appears that mother never intended Master K to meet his father
and to say the least, honour the Court orders. The judicial system
23
in India as well as 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 Master K and certainly, in our view,
such conduct is clearly not in favour of the welfare of the Master
K .
21. With the above, we abstain from observing much about the
conduct of the mother and the manner in which Master K was left
by her at Sonipat with the grandparents. 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 Miss N and Master K is staying with grandparents,
despite the availability of father, who has sufficient means of
sustenance to undertake the well-being of the child, as reflected
from affidavit dated 27.08.2025 filed by him in compliance of
directions given by this Court, the best interest of Master K needs
to be ascertained. On perusal of affidavit, it reveals that father is a
24
qualified engineer having Master’s degree in Computer Science
with a post-graduate diploma in Business Administration. He was
also employed in Singapore, United Kingdom and US for time
being. Thus, his academic credentials and professional
competence cannot be doubted. 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 Master K , would be served if
the interim custody of the child is given to the father who is also
the natural guardian, subject to further orders by the competent
Court of jurisdiction, wherein the proceedings for custody under
the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 be initiated
in this regard. The affidavit dated 27.08.2025 filed by the father
shall be treated as an undertaking and the contents thereof be
treated as part of this order.
22. In the light of the above discussion, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the
welfare and best interest of the child would be served if he would
continue with the father, as such in the opinion of this Court the
25
High Court was justified to grant the interim custody of Master K
to the father. Therefore, the findings as recorded by the High Court
does not warrant any interference in this appeal. In view of the
foregoing, the present appeal stands dismissed with the following
directions: -
a. The custody of minor K shall be handed over by the appellant
no. 1 (mother’s father) to father within a period of fifteen days
from the date of uploading of this judgment on or before
30.09.2025. The place of stay for Master K along with mobile
number and email address of father be supplied to the
Registry of this Court within a period of three days from
today;
b. After handing over the custody of Master K , father/mother,
as the case may be, shall file appropriate proceedings under
the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before
the competent Court within a period of one month. On filing
the same, it shall be decided in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this case;
c. Mother/sibling of Master K shall have the right to
audio/video access to him on every Saturday from 5 p.m.
26
(IST) to 7 p.m. (IST). On mother’s visit to India, she shall have
further right of visitation on every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5
p.m. at a place of mutual choice decided by the parties;
d. The maternal grandparents of Master K shall also have
visitation rights every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at a place
of mutual choice decided between the parties;
e. The father shall not take Master K outside the jurisdiction of
India without the leave of the jurisdictional High Court;
f. The issue of citizenship of Master K shall be subject to the
outcome of the proceedings initiated under the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890. We expect from the parties not to
violate such conditions until the issue of guardianship is
decided by the competent Court;
g. After registration of the proceedings under the provisions of
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, parties are at liberty to seek
audio/video access and visitation rights. On filing such
application, the concerned Court shall pass appropriate order
uninfluenced by the directions passed by this Court which
are interim in nature;
27
h. The Juvenile Justice Board/ Magistrate (Juvenile Justice) of
the place where Master K would stay with father in future
shall oversee and monitor the physical and psychological
well-being of Master K through the Child Welfare Committee
or any Social Welfare Officer available within the District. In
case any adverse report on those issues is received,
information in this regard be sent to the Registry of this Court
through the Principal District Judge of the concerned district.
On receipt of such information, it be registered as
Miscellaneous Application and the matter be immediately
listed for further orders.
i. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to
the concerned District Judge, Magistrate (Juvenile Justice)
and Child Welfare Committee for ensuring compliance of the
directions contained hereinabove.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 325 OF 2022
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 124-125 OF 2024
SLP (CRL) NO. 17530 OF 2024
23. In view of the above directions, Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.
17530 of 2024, Contempt Petition (C) No. 325 of 2022 and
28
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 124-125 of 2024 stand disposed of.
Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.
…….………….……………….J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….………….……………….J.
( VIJAY BISHNOI )
NEW DELHI;
th
SEPTEMBER 16 2025.
29
2025 INSC 1123
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 9497 OF 2021]
KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 325 OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 9497 OF 2021
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 124-125 OF 2024
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 9497 OF 2021
WITH
SLP (CRL) NO. 17530 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Criminal Appeal No. _______ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 9497 of 2021)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
1. Leave granted.
Date: 2025.09.17
10:50:33 IST
Reason:
1
2. In an ongoing prolonged discord of ties between husband –
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Chugh (hereinafter referred as
‘father’ ) and wife – Latika Arora @ Latika Chugh (hereinafter
referred as ‘mother’ ) who got married on 29.11.2010, leading to
further dispute on visitation over their two children, minor
daughter ‘Miss N’ (currently staying with mother in England and
Wales) and minor son ‘Master K’ (currently staying with
grandfather – appellant No. 1), the writ petition seeking writ in the
nature of habeas corpus came to be filed by father on an unhealthy
note before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
alleging illegal custody of children with appellants.
3. The case of the father in brief is that, the mother left India for
United Kingdom on 08.05.2021 with both the children without
informing him and his consent. The father being clueless about the
whereabouts of his children, made an attempt to figure out the
same through child helpline. Through correspondence and enquiry
dated 01.06.2021, the child helpline informed that his children are
not in India. It was further informed that as per his children and
statement of wife, they are safe, secure and the wife is doing job
over there. The said information was furnished by the child
helpline indicating that the case is already pending in the Court.
2
Followed thereafter, the father on 03.06.2021 lodged a formal
complaint before the Police to know the exact whereabouts of his
children.
4. Meanwhile, the mother filed an application for non-
molestation and occupation order against father in UK on
07.06.2021. The father also filed a divorce petition on 05.07.2021
in Noida and simultaneously, moved an application invoking
inherent jurisdiction of the UK High Court of Justice, Family
Division (in short “UK High Court” ), in relation to children,
contending that the mother wrongly removed the children from
India without his knowledge and consent. It was also asserted that
the children are habitual residents of India and accordingly, the
father sought their summary return to India with a further prayer
to make children ward of the Court meanwhile. He further sought
range of prohibitory step orders, including location of the children
and passport.
5. The above petition came for hearing without notice on
13.07.2021 before Mrs. Justice Judd , who passed a location order
against the mother. In compliance, the Tipstaff located mother and
Miss N and later their passport and travel documents were seized.
The mother was served with the notice of proceedings on
3
15.07.2021. The next hearing took place on 26.07.2021 before
Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot , who inter-alia passed the following
directions –
(a) Mother is prevented from changing the location of the
children without informing the father’s solicitor 7 days in
advance and from taking the children outside the jurisdiction
of England and Wales pending the conclusion of proceedings;
(b) Mother to make available the children to spend time with
the Father by way of video and/or telephone calls every
Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 18:00 GMT;
(c) Mother is prohibited from applying for a British passport
or any other passport for the children pending the conclusion
of the proceedings, without the consent of the Father .
6. Following the directives, the father made video calls at 18:00
GMT on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, however, as claimed by
father, Master K was either asleep or unavailable most of the times
for flimsy reasons stated by the mother. All the calls of Master K
were always muted and his video background was also always
hidden. As further contended, the call was portrayed to be
originated from UK, however, the same was from India and in a
collusive manner, the mother with the assistance of her parents,
4
deliberately kept father away from Master K and avoided all sorts
of communication with him. She also did not disclose to him about
his whereabouts despite insistence. When the suspicion grew that
the child is not with mother in UK, and having all the reasons to
believe so, the father was compelled to file the habeas corpus
petition before the High Court on 10.09.2021. It is also important
to note that, amidst all of this, the mother filed a divorce petition
in the UK on 31.07.2021.
7. Curiously, on 16.09.2021, when the father visited the
residence of his father-in-law along with his brother, sister and
mother, to his utter surprise, he found Master K playing in the
locality with his mother-in-law. When the father tried to meet him,
the mother-in-law denied that he is Master K and took him back
from him. At the same time, the father-in-law (appellant no. 1) and
appellant no. 3 (mother’s brother) came there with neighbours,
leading to physical altercation, wherein, the father suffered
th th
fractures in 5 and 6 rib. Thereafter, an application for
preponement of hearing was filed before the High Court, and the
matter was taken up on 24.09.2021, when the following order was
passed: -
“Crl.M.No.1175 of 2021
5
The main case is fixed for 14.10.2021.
Prayer is for pre-poning the date of hearing.
Notice of the application.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf
of respondent – State of Haryana.
For the reasons recorded in the application, which is
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The hearing in
the case is pre-poned to 28.09.2021.
Crl.M.No.1173 of 2021
Prayer is for placing on record additional affidavit of
applicant/petitioner. Allowed, as prayed for.
Crl.M.No.1174 of 2021
By means of this application, the petitioner prays for
appointment of a Warrant Officer to produce minor child Master K
aged about two and half years, who is stated to be in illegal
custody of respondent Nos.5 & 6.
Respondent No. 4 is the wife of the petitioner. Respondent
No.5 is his father-in-law. Respondent No.6 is his brother-in-law.
The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was
solemnized on 29.11.2010. From this marriage they have two
children namely Miss N (daughter) aged about ten years and
Master K (son) aged about 2 ½ years. Due to matrimonial discord
between the couple, respondent No.4 left the matrimonial home in
March, 2020 without informing the petitioner, who was abroad at
that time. She (respondent No.4) took along her both the minor
children and went to her parental home in Sonepat. When the
petitioner came back to India in October 2020 he visited
respondent No.4 and requested her to return with the children but
she refused. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Jind on
03.02.2021 which is pending.
The petitioner filed the petition (CRWP-8954-2021) for
issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus seeking
directions to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 i.e., Superintendent of Police,
Sonepat, and the SHO, P.S Shivaji Colony, Sonepat to get released
minor children from the illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 to 6
and produce them before this Court. Notice of motion was issued
to respondent Nos.4 & 5 for 14.10.2021.
The petitioner and respondent No.4 had been living and
working in U.K from 2010 to 2018. They have permission for
6
indefinite stay there. The petitioner filed an online application
before the High Court Justice Family Division, London for an
inherent jurisdiction order in relation to the minor children Miss N
and Master K seeking relief of summary return of the children to
India, for location and passport orders and for a range of other
orders to ensure the well-being of the children. Respondent No.4
appeared before the Court in London through VC and stated that
she had removed the children from India without the knowledge
or consent of the petitioner because she did not know his
whereabouts. She also agreed to make the children available for
telephone and/or video contact with the petitioner as may be
directed.
Vide order dated 26.07.2021, High Court Justice Family
Division, London directed respondent No.4 to make the children
available to spend time with the petitioner by way of video and/or
telephone calls on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at
18.00 GMT.
Pursuant to the order, the petitioner was on video
conferencing (zoom calls) with his daughter and son. However,
during those calls, the petitioner found that most of the times his
son was half asleep. Sometimes respondent No.4 stated that he
was asleep. Whenever he spoke to his son he was muted. The
background was always hidden. Because of this the petitioner
became suspicious of whereabouts of his son. On 16.09.2021, the
petitioner, his brother Sunil Chugh, his sister-Poonam Rani and
his mother Kamlesh Chugh visited residence of respondent Nos.5
& 6 at Sonepat at about 5.00 p.m. to clear their doubts about the
whereabouts, well-being and welfare of the minor children. The
petitioner was shocked to see that his son Master K was playing
with his maternal grand-mother Ms. Sushma Arora. On seeing the
petitioner his son ran towards him. However, his maternal grand-
mother snatched him away and told the petitioner that the child
was not his son. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 & 6 arrived at the
spot along with their neighbours. The petitioner was physically
assaulted. He suffered 10 serious injuries and was referred to
BPS Hospital, Khanpur. CT scan of his chest revealed fractures of
th th
the anterior ends of right 5 and 6 ribs. A copy of the medical
record is Annexure P-3. The petitioner's statement was recorded
by respondent No.3-SHO, P.S Shivaji Colony, Sonepat but despite
his having suffered grievous injuries, no FIR was registered.
Sh. Anil Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the 2 ½ year old son of the petitioner is presently in the illegal
7
custody of respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Respondent No.4 has gone to
U.K. leaving him behind. The petitioner apprehends that his son
may be removed to an undisclosed destination abroad or any
other place beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, respondent No. 2-Superintendent
of Police, Sonepat is requested to immediately depute a senior
Police Official to visit the residence of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 at
#25, Shivaji Colony, Sonepat, locate the whereabouts of the son
of the petitioner and satisfy that he is in the safe custody of
respondent No.5 and 6. The passport of Master K be taken into
possession and retained in safe custody of respondent No. 2. The
concerned police official would also ensure that the child is
produced before the Court on the next date of hearing through
Video Conferencing mode from the residence of respondent No. 5
and 6.
List on 28.09.2021. To be shown in the Urgent List.
Meanwhile, Respondents No. 5 and 6 are directed not to
remove/ take away Master K - the son of the petitioner to any
place beyond the borders of District Sonepat.
A copy of this petition and the connected application be
served on respondent Nos.5 & 6 through respondent No.2.
A copy of this order be provided Dasti to Ld. State counsel
for onward transmission to concerned quarters for compliance. ”
8. As such, Superintendent of Police, Sonipat was requested to
depute a senior police official to visit the residence of appellant
nos. 1 & 3 to locate the whereabouts of Master K and satisfy that
he was in the safe custody. It was directed that the passport of
Master K be taken into possession and retained in safe custody.
Master K was also to be produced before the High Court through
video conferencing from the residence of the appellant nos. 1 & 3
on 28.09.2021. When the matter was taken up on 28.09.2021, the
8
High Court passed the following order, which is also relevant,
hence, reproduced as under: -
“ Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated
24.9.2021, the police officials visited the house of respondents
No. 4 to 6 at Sonipat. The minor child Master K was present in
the house alongwith respondents No. 5 and 6.
Respondents No. 5 and 6 have appeared alongwith minor
child Master K in Court today through video conferencing.
Mr. Surender Singh, learned AAG Haryana states that Mr.
Hans Raj, DSP who was deputed to visit the house of
respondents No. 5 and 6 has specifically inquired about the
passport of minor child Master K. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have
stated that the passport is not in their possession and they are
not aware about the passport.
Mr. Sandhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
respondents No.4 to 6. He states that respondents are trying to
locate the passport. As and when the same is located, it would
immediately be handed over to DSP concerned who is inquiring
the matter.
Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for petitioner has stressed
that if the minor child Master K is presently in the custody of
respondents No. 5 and 6, then interim custody of minor child be
handed over to him as he is the natural guardian.
Mr. Sandhu prays for time to address arguments. He
undertakes on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6 that they would
not remove/take away minor son of petitioner Master K to any
place beyond the borders of District Sonipat during pendency of
this petition.
Adjourned to 1.10.2021.
To be shown in urgent list. ”
9. Thereafter, the counsel for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 appearing
before the High Court had undertaken that they would not
remove/take away Master K beyond the borders of district Sonipat
during pendency of the habeas corpus petition. Later, the
9
undertaking was acknowledged, and the hearing was concluded.
The High Court vide order impugned dated 16.11.2021 allowed the
habeas corpus petition and passed the following directions: -
“ Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, in my
view:
(i) it would not be in the interest of Master K (sic) to be
permitted to travel to U.K. pending a determination of the various
disputes between the parties in the Courts in U.K. In U.K.
respondent No.4 would have to single handedly care for Master
K (sic) and her daughter Miss N (sic), which may be difficult in
view of the demands of her career. In India, apart from his father
- the petitioner, Master K (sic) can enjoy the care, love and
affection of his grandparents and other members of the family
both on the paternal and maternal side. Though born in U.K.
Master K (sic) has been in India since 29.06.2019 (He was a
little over four months then. He is now about two years eight
months. His date of birth being 15.02.2019);
(ii) pending a final determination of the issues of custody
between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in a properly
instituted proceeding, the best interest of Master K (sic) would
be served if his custody is handed over to the petitioner.
Petitioner's mother (paternal grandmother of Master K (sic)
resides with the petitioner and would be available to care for him.
Respondents No. 4 to 6 are directed to hand over Master K
th
(sic) to the petitioner on 6 December, 2021. Respondents No. 5
and 6 would take Master K (sic) to the Court of Chief Judicial
th
Magistrate, Sonepat on 6 December, 2021 at 10.00 AM where
petitioner along with his mother would be present. Master K (sic)
would be handed over to the petitioner in the presence of CJM
Sonepat. Respondents No. 5 and 6 would not directly or
indirectly hinder or obstruct the petitioner from leaving the place
with Master K.
Once the custody of Master K (sic) is handed over to him,
the petitioner would make available Master K (sic) to spend time
with respondent No. 4 (mother) by way of video and/or
telephonic calls every day.
Considering that Master K (sic) has been living with
respondents No. 5 and 6 for the last over one year when
10
respondent No. 4 started residing there along the children ( Miss
N (sic) and Master K (sic) petitioner would also facilitate
telephone/ video contact between Master K (sic) and his
maternal grandparents at least thrice a week.
As Master K (sic) would take some time to settle in the new
place and would initially need greater care and affection to make
him comfortable, the petitioner would not travel abroad for six
months from the date the custody of Master K (sic) is handed
over to him. ”
10. The said order has been assailed by the mother, her father
and her brother by filing the present appeal. In the proceeding
dated 13.12.2021 notice was issued and the stay was granted on
execution of the order of the High Court subject to the condition
that Master K will not be taken abroad. On perusal of submissions
and records, it appears that the Family Court in UK vide order
dated 21.12.2021 passed a decree of divorce in the petition filed by
the mother, though, the said decree is under challenge in appeal
filed by father. On the contrary, the Family Court at Jind, Haryana,
by order dated 20.09.2022 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 mother. Amidst all
this cross-country litigation and pendency of the present appeal
this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 granted visitation right for
Master K to the father on every Sunday between 12 to 5 p.m. Be
that as it may, it further appears that after conclusion of the
11
hearing of the case before the High Court on 14.10.2021 and prior
to pronouncement of judgment on 16.11.2021, the judgment dated
12.11.2021 passed by the UK High Court in final hearing of the
application preferred by father seeking return of his children was
not available before the High Court.
11. In the said backdrop, the aforesaid judgment assumes
significance and is necessary to be referred to. In the said
judgment, the UK High Court has referenced the previous orders
passed and in particular, recorded the conduct of the mother along
with conduct of father as per the averments made by the mother.
In paras 39 and 40 of the said judgment observations made against
the mother are as under:
“ 39. It has since been brought to the attention of this court and
the father that Master K did not leave India with his mother
and sister. As stated above, Master K has been in the care
of his maternal grandparents in Sonipat since 8 May 2021.
It is inconceivable that Mrs Justice Arbuthnot would have
issued the order in those terms had she known that Master
K was not in the UK with his mother, but rather in India
with his maternal grandparents. The order refers to the
fact that the mother “confirmed that she removed the
children from India” and agreed to “make the children
available for telephone and/or video contact”. I underline
and highlight the plural form of “children”. Mrs Justice
Arbuthnot ordered that both of the children, Miss N and
Master K, be made available for video contact calls at
18:00 GMT. 18:00 GMT translates to 22:30 in Sonipat
during the summer and, with the end of BST, now
translates to 23:30. She would never have made such an
order had she known that Master K was in fact in India.
12
40. It is clear from the above that the mother lured the court
into error by failing to disclose that she had only removed
Miss N to the UK and that Master K remained in India. This
crude subterfuge, which was always going to be found out,
does the mother no credit at all. ”
emphasis supplied
12. On the basis of the statement of Miss N , apprehension
regarding father has been recorded in the said judgment, however,
the Court proceeded to decide the issue of ‘habitual residence’ and
applying the ‘test of sufficiency of integration’, observed that Miss
N has sufficiently reintegrated so as to become the habitual
resident of UK as she is staying since May 2021 continuously.
Though for Master K , the Court noted that Master K immediate
after birth visited the India and has mostly spent his life there. He
cannot be said to be a habitual resident. The UK High Court
disposing-of the case, passed the following the order: -
“ 67. Since June 2019 neither parent has behaved well towards
the other. The father has harassed and bullied the mother
in the ways I have described. The mother has behaved
deceptively and high-handedly. She has not conducted her
case with propriety for which I had to admonish her at the
start of the case.
68. This poor behaviour must not distract me from my
essential task, which is to determine what is in the best
interests of Miss N. I am satisfied that it would be in the
best interests of Miss N that she should be reunited with
Master K and that they should be brought up together
under the primary care of their mother in London. The
wishes and feelings of Miss N very strongly favour that.
Miss N enjoys a social network in London, and is well
settled here. The mother wishes to become economically
13
independent and has convinced me that this is more easily
achievable in London where there are more facilities to be
able to balance work with her responsibilities to the
children. It makes little odds whether the mother primarily
cares for the children in London or in some city in India far
away from the father’s abode. I consider it likely that the
father will not stay working in India for long. He has been
working in the USA for Credit Suisse and, although he
says that he is intending to return to India permanently, I
sensed a degree of forensic positioning during his answers
on this subject. If the father returned to work in the USA,
then it makes absolutely no difference to him whether the
children are under the primary care of the mother in
England or in India.
69. I have concluded that the appropriate course is for me to
adjourn the father’s application for the return of Miss N to
India pending the decision of Mr Justice Singh Sidhu about
the future of Master K.
70. My order will contain a respectful request to Mr Justice
Singh Sidhu to consider allowing the mother to relocate
Master K to London to be reunited with his sister, provided,
of course, that he is satisfied that such a disposal would
be in his best interests. ”
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the UK High Court in
para 72 ordered as under: -
“ 72. My order will therefore provide that:
i) The father’s application for the return of Miss N to
India shall stand adjourned;
ii) The father’s application that the children be made
wards of court is dismissed.
iii) Miss N shall live with the mother and have contact
with her father;
iv) If the court in India permits Master K to relocate to
London, he shall live with the mother and have
contact with his father;
v) In the event that the court in India permits Master K
to relocate to London, the father’s return application
shall stand dismissed;
14
vi) If by 12 February 2022 the court in India has not
permitted Master K to relocate to London, the father’s
return application shall be restored before me;
vii) In any event the travel documents of the mother and
Miss N are to be returned to the mother; and
viii) A copy of this judgment shall be made available at
the earliest opportunity to Mr Justice Singh Sidhu.
14. In view of the foregoing factual backdrop, in our viewpoint, it
is required to be seen that whether the directions as issued by the
High Court warrant interference in this appeal or not. It is further
required to be looked into whether the interim custody of the
Master K be continued with appellant no. 1 till final determination
of the issues between the parties and whether without proper
instituted proceedings of custody of Master K , continuation of his
custody with grandfather would be in his best interest or it should
be with the father.
15. During pendency of the present appeal, we deemed it proper
to have an interaction with the child to gain his inclination and
vide order dated 08.05.2024, Master K was called for discussion
in Chamber. 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, and
therefore, the matter posted for final hearing.
15
16. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and to answer the questions as posed hereinabove, we are
constrained to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of
1
‘Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali ’ , where this Court was
dealing with question qua jurisdiction of Family Court, Hyderabad
to decide the application for custody of minor children (both US
citizens), filed by their mother who had come to India for attending
her grandmother’s funeral. The said application was filed by
concealing the application for custody already filed in Court in US
by her. Balancing the doctrine of comity of Courts with the best
interest of the child, this Court on the issue of whether it was in
the best interest of the children to return to US observed as under:
-
“ 42. The essence of the judgment in Nithya Anand Raghavan v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454, is that the doctrines of
comity of courts, intimate connect, orders passed by foreign
courts having jurisdiction in the matter regarding custody of the
minor child, citizenship of the parents and the child, etc. cannot
override the consideration of the best interest and the welfare of
the child and that the direction to return the child to the foreign
jurisdiction must not result in any physical, mental,
psychological, or other harm to the child.
xx xx xx
49. The crucial factors which have to be kept in mind by the
courts for gauging the welfare of the children equally for the
parent's can be inter alia, delineated, such as (1) maturity and
judgment; (2) mental stability; (3) ability to provide access to
1
(2019) 7 SCC 311
16
schools; (4) moral character; (5) ability to provide continuing
involvement in the community; (6) financial sufficiency and last
but not the least the factors involving relationship with the child,
as opposed to characteristics of the parent as an individual.
50. While dealing with the younger tender year doctrine, Janusz
Korczar a famous Polish-Jewish educator & children's author
observed:
“children cannot wait too long and they are not people of
tomorrow, but are people of today. They have a right to be
taken seriously, and to be treated with tenderness and
respect. They should be allowed to grow into whoever they
are meant to be — the unknown person inside each of them
is our hope for the future.”
Child rights may be limited but they should not be ignored or
eliminated since children are in fact persons wherein all
fundamental rights are guaranteed to them keeping in mind the
best interest of the child and the various other factors which play
a pivotal role in taking decision to which reference has been
made taking note of the parental autonomy which courts do not
easily discard.
17. Similarly, this Court in ‘Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh
2
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others ’ , while allowing the writ
petition under Article 32 filed by the mother seeking issuance of
writ in the nature of habeas corpus to trace and produce her minor
children (both residents of US) and deliver their custody so as to
repatriate them back to US, reiterated the paramount importance
best interest of child and observed as thus: -
“91. While considering the competing rights of natural
guardianships vis-à-vis the welfare of the child, the test for
consideration by the court was held to be; what would best serve
the welfare and interest of the child. Referring to the earlier
decisions in Sumedha Nagpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2000) 9
2
(2023) 12 SCC 472
17
SCC 745; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC
840; Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42
and Muthuswami Chettiar v. K.M. Chinna Muthusami Moopanar,
1934 SCC OnLine Mad 280, it was also held that the welfare of
child prevails over the legal rights of the parties while deciding
the custody of minor child. The observations made in the
judgment in this regard are as follows: [See Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv
Baijal, (2009) 7 SCC 322, SCC p. 325, paras 14-15]
“14. The question for our consideration is, whether in
the present scenario would it be proper to direct the
appellant to hand over the custody of the minor child
Anagh to the respondent.
15. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the
father is the guardian of the minor child until he is
found unfit to be the guardian of the minor female
child. In deciding such questions, the welfare of the
minor child is the paramount consideration and such a
question cannot be decided merely based upon the
rights of the parties under the law. [See Sumedha
Nagpal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2000) 9 SCC 745, SCC
p. 747, paras 2 & 5.]
92. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC
840], this Court has observed that : (SCC p. 847, para 7)
“7. … the principle on which the court should decide
the fitness of the guardian mainly depends on two
factors : (i) the father's fitness or otherwise to be the
guardian, and (ii) the interests of the minors.”
93. This Court considering the welfare of the child also stated
that : (SCC p. 855, para 15)
“15. … The children are not mere chattels : nor are they
mere playthings for their parents. Absolute right of
parents over the destinies and the lives of their
children has, in the modern changed social conditions,
yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human
beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced
manner to be useful members of the society….”
94. In Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (supra), this
Court has observed that whenever a question arises before a
court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to
be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties
18
but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best
serve the interest and welfare of the child.
95. The question as to how the court would determine what is
best in the interest of the child was considered McGrath (Infants),
In re [McGrath (Infants), In re, (1893) 1 Ch 143 (CA)] , and it was
observed by Lindley, L.J., as follows : (Ch p. 148)
“… The dominant matter for the consideration of the
Court is the welfare of the child. But the welfare of a
child is not to be measured by money only, nor by
physical comfort only. The word welfare must be taken
in its widest sense. The moral and religious welfare of
the child must be considered as well as its physical
well-being. Nor can the ties of affection be
disregarded.”
96. The issue as to the welfare of the child again arose “O” (An
Infant), In re [“O” (An Infant), In re, 1965 Ch 23 (CA)] , where
Harman, L.J., stated as follows : (Ch p. 29)
“… It is not, I think, really in dispute that in all cases
the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child;
but that, of course, does not mean you add up shillings
and pence, or situation or prospects, or even religion.
What you look at is the whole background of the child's
life, and the first consideration you have to take into
account when you are looking at his welfare is : who
are his parents and are they ready to do their duty?”
97. The question as to what would be the dominating factors
while examining the welfare of a child was considered in Walker
v. Walker & Harrison [Walker v. Walker & Harrison, 1981 New
Ze Recent Law 257] and it was observed that while the material
considerations have their place, they are secondary matters.
More important are stability and security, loving and
understanding care and guidance, and warm and
compassionate relationships which are essential for the
development of the child's character, personality and talents. It
was stated as follows:
“Welfare is an all-encompassing word. It includes
material welfare; both in the sense of adequacy of
resources to provide a pleasant home and a
comfortable standard of living and in the sense of an
adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due
personal pride are maintained. However, while
19
material considerations have their place they are
secondary matters. More important are the stability
and the security, the loving and understanding care
and guidance, the warm and compassionate
relationships that are essential for the full development
of the child's own character, personality and talents.”
98. In the context of consideration of an application by a parent
seeking custody of a child through the medium of a habeas
corpus proceeding, it has been stated in American
Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol. 39 as follows:
“… An application by a parent, through the medium of
a habeas corpus proceeding, for custody of a child is
addressed to the discretion of the court, and custody
may be withheld from the parent where it is made
clearly to appear that by reason of unfitness for the
trust or of other sufficient causes the permanent
interests of the child would be sacrificed by a change
of custody. In determining whether it will be for the
best interest of a child to award its custody to the
father or mother, the court may properly consult the
child, if it has sufficient judgment.”
99. Thus, it is well established that in issuing the writ of habeas
corpus in the case of minors, the jurisdiction which the Court
exercises is an inherent jurisdiction as distinct from a statutory
jurisdiction conferred by any particular provision in any special
statute. In other words, the employment of the writ of habeas
corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but independent
of any statute. The jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in
such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force
of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor
ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result
sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction
of a court of equity. The primary object of a habeas corpus
petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose
custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced.
In a habeas corpus proceeding brought by one parent against the
other for the custody of their child, the Court has before it the
question of the rights of the parties as between themselves, and
also has before it, if presented by the pleadings and the
evidence, the question of the interest which the State, as parens
patriae, has in promoting the best interests of the child. ”
20
3
18. Recently, this Court in ‘Neethu B. Vs. Rajesh Kumar ’ , was
dealing with a review petition preferred by mother on the ground
of deteriorating mental health of child due to order of handing over
custody by this Court to the father. The same was corroborated by
medical reports on record. While allowing the review petition and
granting custody back to mother, this Court observed as thus –
“ 15. The core and inalienable standard is the paramount
consideration of the child's welfare, which is affected by an array
of factors, is ever evolving and cannot be confined in a
straitjacket. Therefore, each case has to be dealt with on the
basis of its unique facts and take into account any change in
circumstances which have an impact on the quality of a child's
upbringing.
xx xx xx
25. ….The factors defining the best interests of a child are
multiple and range from quality education, a nurturing family
environment, healthy worldly experiences, provision of basic
amenities of life, meeting of financial requirements, access to a
friendly social system to imparting of spiritual and cultural
learnings. The list is naturally not an exhaustive one. However,
the essential feature is that a secure, supportive and loving
family forms the bedrock of a healthy childhood experience and
helps one grow into a balanced, positive and confident adult.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and after considering the
facts as outlined above, 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
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1435
21
has not only strained their marital relationship but has also
adversely impacted their children. It is evident from the conduct of
both parties that, although the mother has obtained a divorce from
the Family Court in London, she has 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—has 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. 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. While we refrain from making any definitive comment on
the intentions of the parties, the circumstances compel us to focus
on how best the welfare and interests of the children can be
safeguarded.
20. In the said sequel, after going through the judgment dated
12.11.2021 of the UK High Court, it reveals that when the
22
statement of Miss N was taken, the reflection of hate against father
cannot been ruled out. It is also to be noted that Miss N is staying
with mother since long and the father is staying in India, then how
far such hate may be good for the father. If we look the conduct of
the mother, it can safely be observed that while leaving Master K
in India, it was her primary duty to inform the father, which was
not discharged. It was also her duty to disclose to UK High Court
that Master K 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. We are constrained to express
our displeasure at such conduct of the mother and deprecate the
same. It is to be noted that, due to such conduct, the father was
deprived of having virtual meetings with Master K despite orders
from UK High Court and ultimately he had to file the habeas
corpus petition when the suspicion brewed. Master K throughout
was living with appellant no. 1 and father was deliberately not
informed about the same despite the Court orders. As such, it
appears that mother never intended Master K to meet his father
and to say the least, honour the Court orders. The judicial system
23
in India as well as 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 Master K and certainly, in our view,
such conduct is clearly not in favour of the welfare of the Master
K .
21. With the above, we abstain from observing much about the
conduct of the mother and the manner in which Master K was left
by her at Sonipat with the grandparents. 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 Miss N and Master K is staying with grandparents,
despite the availability of father, who has sufficient means of
sustenance to undertake the well-being of the child, as reflected
from affidavit dated 27.08.2025 filed by him in compliance of
directions given by this Court, the best interest of Master K needs
to be ascertained. On perusal of affidavit, it reveals that father is a
24
qualified engineer having Master’s degree in Computer Science
with a post-graduate diploma in Business Administration. He was
also employed in Singapore, United Kingdom and US for time
being. Thus, his academic credentials and professional
competence cannot be doubted. 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 Master K , would be served if
the interim custody of the child is given to the father who is also
the natural guardian, subject to further orders by the competent
Court of jurisdiction, wherein the proceedings for custody under
the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 be initiated
in this regard. The affidavit dated 27.08.2025 filed by the father
shall be treated as an undertaking and the contents thereof be
treated as part of this order.
22. In the light of the above discussion, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the
welfare and best interest of the child would be served if he would
continue with the father, as such in the opinion of this Court the
25
High Court was justified to grant the interim custody of Master K
to the father. Therefore, the findings as recorded by the High Court
does not warrant any interference in this appeal. In view of the
foregoing, the present appeal stands dismissed with the following
directions: -
a. The custody of minor K shall be handed over by the appellant
no. 1 (mother’s father) to father within a period of fifteen days
from the date of uploading of this judgment on or before
30.09.2025. The place of stay for Master K along with mobile
number and email address of father be supplied to the
Registry of this Court within a period of three days from
today;
b. After handing over the custody of Master K , father/mother,
as the case may be, shall file appropriate proceedings under
the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before
the competent Court within a period of one month. On filing
the same, it shall be decided in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this case;
c. Mother/sibling of Master K shall have the right to
audio/video access to him on every Saturday from 5 p.m.
26
(IST) to 7 p.m. (IST). On mother’s visit to India, she shall have
further right of visitation on every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5
p.m. at a place of mutual choice decided by the parties;
d. The maternal grandparents of Master K shall also have
visitation rights every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at a place
of mutual choice decided between the parties;
e. The father shall not take Master K outside the jurisdiction of
India without the leave of the jurisdictional High Court;
f. The issue of citizenship of Master K shall be subject to the
outcome of the proceedings initiated under the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890. We expect from the parties not to
violate such conditions until the issue of guardianship is
decided by the competent Court;
g. After registration of the proceedings under the provisions of
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, parties are at liberty to seek
audio/video access and visitation rights. On filing such
application, the concerned Court shall pass appropriate order
uninfluenced by the directions passed by this Court which
are interim in nature;
27
h. The Juvenile Justice Board/ Magistrate (Juvenile Justice) of
the place where Master K would stay with father in future
shall oversee and monitor the physical and psychological
well-being of Master K through the Child Welfare Committee
or any Social Welfare Officer available within the District. In
case any adverse report on those issues is received,
information in this regard be sent to the Registry of this Court
through the Principal District Judge of the concerned district.
On receipt of such information, it be registered as
Miscellaneous Application and the matter be immediately
listed for further orders.
i. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to
the concerned District Judge, Magistrate (Juvenile Justice)
and Child Welfare Committee for ensuring compliance of the
directions contained hereinabove.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 325 OF 2022
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 124-125 OF 2024
SLP (CRL) NO. 17530 OF 2024
23. In view of the above directions, Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.
17530 of 2024, Contempt Petition (C) No. 325 of 2022 and
28
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 124-125 of 2024 stand disposed of.
Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.
…….………….……………….J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….………….……………….J.
( VIJAY BISHNOI )
NEW DELHI;
th
SEPTEMBER 16 2025.
29