Sanam Talwar vs Shabeer Gerewal

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 15.06.2026
Judgment delivered on: 17.06.2026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026, CM APPL. 38759/2026 & CM APPL.
38760/2026
SANAM TALWAR .....Appellant
versus
SHABEER GEREWAL .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Ms. Priya Hingorani, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Aditi Ladda,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Somnath Bharti and Ms. Kashish
Aggarwal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984, assailing the order dated 05.06.2026 (“ Impugned
Order ”) passed in HMA No. 628/2025 by the learned Family Court-01
(“ Family Court ”), South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the
Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 was allowed, permitting the minor child to be brought to India
from the USA.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

2. Vide order dated 12.06.2026 passed in the present Appeal, both the
Appellant and the Respondent were directed to file their respective
Affidavits placing on record the relevant facts concerning the visa status of
the minor child. The said order further recorded that, although the
Respondent may travel to the USA on 12.06.2026, he shall await further
orders of this Court before bringing the minor child back to India.
3. In compliance with the directions contained in the order dated
12.06.2026, the Appellant as well as the Respondent have filed their
respective affidavits setting out their positions with regard to the visa status
of the minor child.
4. We heard learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and learned
Counsel for the Respondent at length on 15.06.2026 and perused the
Affidavits.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned
Family Court failed to interact with the minor child so as to ascertain his
wishes and preferences prior to passing the Impugned Order, despite the
Appellant having specifically brought to the notice of the learned Family
Court that the minor child had repeatedly expressed his unwillingness to
travel to India during the summer vacation. It was submitted that the
Impugned Order was passed without due consideration of the wishes and
best interests of the minor child.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the
learned Family Court misdirected itself in relation to the issue concerning
the citizenship of the minor child. It was contended that there had never
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

been any dispute regarding the citizenship or nationality of the minor child
and that the concerns raised by the Appellant were confined solely to the
child’s immigration status and his re-entry into the USA during the
pendency of the ongoing visa transition process.
7. It was further submitted that the minor child is presently residing in
the USA on a dependent visa linked to the Appellant and that the child’s
immigration process is presently undergoing a transitional phase consequent
upon the Appellant’s selection under the H-1B FY 2027 CAP Programme.
It was submitted that the Impugned Order failed to appreciate that any
disruption during this transition period could directly affect the child’s legal
status, continuity of residence, and right to remain in the United States.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned
Family Court disregarded the fact that the Appellant’s H-1B petition process
was ongoing and time-sensitive, and that the Appellant had specifically
pleaded that the immigration process required strict compliance with
applicable immigration requirements during the pendency of the process. It
was submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that
uncertainty regarding the immigration status of the custodial parent
necessarily impacts the welfare and legal status of the dependent minor
child.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
Appellant had relied upon authentic documents demonstrating the minor
child’s continuing immigration status and the potential consequences that
may ensue if the child undertakes international travel prior to completion of
the pending visa transition process. It was submitted that, despite such
material having been placed on record, the learned Family Court failed to
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

appreciate that the minor child may not be permitted to re-enter and continue
residing in the USA given that his immigration status being directly linked
to the Appellant and her ongoing immigration process.
10. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellant pursuant to the order
dated 12.06.2026, the Appellant has annexed the tourist visa as well as the
F-2 visa of the minor child and has submitted that, in order to undertake
international travel while on F-1/F-2 visas, the academic institution in which
the principal F-1 visa holder is enrolled is required to issue an updated Form
I-20 for travel purposes in respect of both the student and the dependent.
According to the record, the minor child has always travelled on F-2
dependent status despite also holding a tourist visa. It is further stated in the
said affidavit that any departure of the minor child from the USA during the
pendency of the change-of-status application would adversely affect the
immigration process.
11. The Appellant has also relied upon an opinion furnished by an
immigration attorney in the USA stating that, if the minor child were to
leave the USA at this juncture, it would have a severe, direct, and
irreversible effect on his immigration status.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned
Family Court failed to consider that the Respondent is presently employed
as a Vice-President at a multinational corporation and is financially capable
of travelling to and spending meaningful time with the minor child in the
USA during the summer vacation of 2026, as he had done on a previous
occasions.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the minor
child had travelled to India during the summer vacations of 2024 and 2025,
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

as well as during the winter vacation of 2025, and that such visits were
facilitated by the Appellant. It was submitted that the past conduct of the
Appellant clearly demonstrated her bona fides and negated any allegation
that she was attempting to deny the Respondent access to the minor child.
Accordingly, it was contended that the Appellant has always acted bona fide
and has never obstructed or prevented the minor child from travelling to
India to meet the Respondent.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the new
academic session of the minor child’s school is scheduled to commence on
15.07.2026 and that, as per the Impugned Order, the minor child is directed
to be returned to the Appellant at least three days prior to the reopening of
the school. It was submitted that it would, therefore, be in the best interests
of the minor child to remain in the USA so as to ensure his presence at the
commencement of the academic year, as any departure from the USA would
directly jeopardize the child’s school enrolment and academic continuity.
15. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant contended that the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family
Court is liable to be set aside or, in the alternative, modified to the extent
that the Respondent shall be entitled to receive custody of the minor child
from the Appellant and remain with the child in the USA without bringing
the minor child to India.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
16. Per contra , learned Counsel for the Respondent strongly opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant and contended that the
minor child holds a B-1/B-2 tourist visa, which is valid for a period of ten
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

years and is, therefore, capable of re-entering the USA on the strength of the
said visa even if the F-2 visa is no longer valid. It was further submitted that,
under the applicable immigration framework in the USA, the Appellant is
entitled to continue in lawful F-1 non-immigrant status upon completion of
her academic programme during the period of Optional Practical Training
(“ OPT ”). It was, accordingly, contended that the dependent F-2 status of the
minor child remains secure, operative, and valid under the applicable law of
the USA.
17. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that,
notwithstanding the complete stability of the immigration status of the minor
child, the Appellant had failed to place on record updated documentary
material regarding her current OPT employment status and the
corresponding immigration records of the minor child. It was further
contended that a perusal of the historical visa stamps demonstrates that the
minor child’s departure from and return to the USA remains entirely
feasible. Learned Counsel also submitted that the minor child holds a valid
multiple-entry B-1/B-2 visa until 31.07.2029 and would, therefore, be in a
position to return to the USA on the basis of the said tourist visa.
18. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the documents
relied upon by the Appellant clearly indicate that the process for change of
the Appellant’s visa status had not yet commenced. It was further contended
that the submissions advanced by the Appellant with regard to the
immigration status of the minor child were wholly misconceived and, for
that reason, were rightly rejected by the learned Family Court in the
Impugned Order.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
19. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Appellant as well as the Respondent, we are of the considered view that the
Impugned Order does not adequately appreciate the immigration-related
concerns raised by the Appellant while holding that such objections do not
justify denial of access to the Respondent. The Impugned Order proceeds on
the basis that there is no legal prohibition, judicial restraint, statutory
embargo, or binding direction of any competent immigration authority on
record to indicate that the minor child is prohibited from travelling outside
the USA. It further observes that the advice received from immigration
consultants may be relevant to the Appellant’s personal immigration
planning but cannot be elevated to the status of a legal bar against the child’s
travel. The learned Family Court has also observed that immigration rules
and visa processes in foreign jurisdictions, including the USA, are subject to
frequent changes and stricter scrutiny, and that the pendency of such
processes cannot indefinitely suspend the father-child relationship.
20. The Impugned Order has, however, overlooked the serious concerns
arising from the change in the Appellant’s immigration status and the
consequential impact on the minor child’s residence and immigration status
in the USA. The material placed on record by the Appellant indicates that
the minor child’s immigration status is linked to that of the Appellant, whose
visa status is presently in transition consequent upon the completion of her
academic programme and the commencement of employment in the USA.
21. Further, the minor child is presently studying in the USA, and the new
academic session is stated to commence on 15.07.2026. Although the
opinion of the attorney placed on record is not binding on this Court, the
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

opinion expressed on affidavit by a qualified immigration attorney may be
treated as a statement of fact having persuasive value. On the other hand, the
Respondent has relied upon the existence of a tourist visa held by the minor
child and has submitted that the child would be able to return to the USA in
compliance with the Impugned Order, which directs that the child be handed
over to the Appellant three days prior to the commencement of the academic
session.
22. Accordingly, if the minor child travels to India pursuant to the
Impugned Order and is, thereafter, not permitted to return to the USA on
account of immigration-related complications, the same would not be
conducive to the welfare and best interests of the minor child. At present, the
custody of the minor child remains with the Appellant, whereas the
Respondent has been granted visitation rights during the summer and winter
vacations by the learned Family Court. In these circumstances, the
immigration-related issues give rise to a serious concern regarding the
child’s ability to travel to India and thereafter return to the USA, particularly
when the child’s visa status is linked to that of the Appellant, whose own
status is presently in transition on account of her employment. Accordingly,
the observation of the learned Family Court that the immigration-related
issues would result in denial of access to the Respondent does not appear to
be entirely accurate.
23. As the Respondent has already travelled to the USA on 12.06.2026
and is presently there, Respondent shall be able to have access to the minor
child while he remains in the USA, and he may continue to have custody of
the child during the summer vacation without bringing the minor child to
India, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the child’s immigration status.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39

Before the Respondent travelled to the USA, he was aware about the
pendency of this Appeal and was specifically directed that he would await
the outcome of this Appeal for brining minor child back to India.
Accordingly, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if he
continues to be in the USA to spend the entire summer vacation with the
minor child without bringing the minor child back to India. Although it was
submitted during the course of the hearing that the Respondent has to join
his work on 22.06.2026 and needs to return to India for the same, it is
always possible for the Respondent to give priority to the minor child by
extending his stay in the USA by working remotely from there.
24. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the Impugned Order is modified to
the extent that the minor child shall remain with the Respondent in the USA
during the vacation period without being brought to India, and the
Respondent shall ensure that the child is returned to the Appellant in the
USA three days prior to the reopening of the minor child’s school on
15.07.2026.
25. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order
passed by the learned Family Court stands modified to the extent indicated
hereinabove. The Appeal, along with the pending Applications, stands
disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
MADHU JAIN, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 17, 2026
‘gsr’
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 204/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.06.2026
16:52:39