Mother’s custody is not unlawful where visa revocation and child’s welfare necessitate residence in India.

The Petitioner (father) and Respondent No. 2 (mother) are US citizens; their minor son ‘N’ (born 2014) is also a US citizen.

The family moved from the USA to the UK in 2019 on work visas.

Following marital discord, the mother left the UK for India with ‘N’ in July 2023 after the UK Home Office revoked her visa—an action allegedly triggered by the Petitioner informing the Home Office of their separation.

The Petitioner obtained orders from the High Court of Justice, Family Division, UK, declaring ‘N’ a ward of the court and directing his return to England.

The Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Bombay High Court seeking the child's return to the UK, while the mother initiated divorce and custody proceedings in Mumbai.

1. Whether the custody of the minor child with his biological mother in India can be deemed "illegal" or "unlawful" solely because it contravenes orders passed by a foreign court.

2. Whether, under the principle of "paramount interest of the child," it is in the minor's best interest to be returned to the UK, given the parents' residency status and the child's citizenship.

In Habeas Corpus petitions involving child custody, the "paramount consideration" is the best interest and welfare of the child.

Custody by a biological mother is presumed lawful and a foreign court’s "return order" does not automatically render such custody illegal (Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State of NCT of Delhi).

Application of the "Parental Alienation Syndrome" from Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh.

Establishment of "contact rights" as per Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan.

Best interest is a fact-specific determination rather than a rigid application of citizenship-based return (Distinguishing Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali and Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka).

The Court determined that the mother's custody was not unlawful as she is the natural guardian, and her departure from the UK was necessitated by her visa revocation.

Returning the child to the UK was impractical because neither parent had an immediate pathway to live in the USA, and the mother’s stay in the UK would be precarious and entirely dependent on the Petitioner.

During a chamber interview, the child expressed a mature preference to stay in India.

The Petitioner’s refusal to provide an NOC for ‘N’s US passport renewal demonstrated conduct contrary to the child's best interests.

The lack of a support system for the Petitioner in the UK and his history of health issues raised concerns about the child's safety in his sole custody.

The "best interest of the child" outweighed the "comity of courts" regarding the UK return orders.

The Petitioner's prayer for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was rejected, and the parties were directed to resolve the long-term custody dispute through the pending proceedings in the Family Court at Bandra independently of the observations made in this judgment.