CASE NAME: Father v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: Writ Petition No. 22723 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
DATE: 01.04.2026
QUORUM: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela
FACTS
A father who’s a British citizen approached the honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution with a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of his daughter who is also a British citizen. The child was visiting India for vacation and was staying with her maternal grandparents.
The father relied on multiple court orders from the UK returning the custody of the child. The mother refuted the same alleging cruelty, separation and that it is in the best interest of the child to live with her mother in India.
ISSUE
- Whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable to be enforced in foreign custody orders?
- Whether Indian courts can determine custody independently under parens patriae overriding UK court orders?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226, Constitution of India
- Section 13(f), CPC
- Article 12 & 13, Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980
- Parens patriae doctrine
- Doctrine of Comity of Courts
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS:
The petitioner argued that the child was held in wrongful custody by the mother and the UK court’s custody orders must be respected under the comity of courts. The petitioner further held that UK courts shall have jurisdiction in this case as it happens to be their habitual place of residence. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable.
RESPONDANTS:
The respondent contended that the child was living in India with her mother since 2019 and was settled here. The mother being the biological guardian of the child, the custody is not unlawful. The respondent further argued that even if the court grants the petitioner custody of their daughter he will place the child with his parents, and a girl child of such tender age must be living with her mother and that is in her best interest. Finally, she also argued that UK court orders are not legally executable in India, thus, habeas corpus cannot be granted.
ANALYSIS
Relying on Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh & Others (2024) 10 SCC 595 the Court held that the custody within the family cannot be termed ‘unlawful’. The child was with her mother hence it is prima facie lawful. The Court also noted that it was the petitioner himself who handed over the child over to her paternal grandparents pursuant to the UK court’s orders.
While the Court acknowledged comity of courts it also noted that following Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another (2017) 8 SCC 454 the Court held that foreign jurisdiction cases are merely persuasive and are not legally binding on the Indian courts.
The Court also noted how the UK High Court’s observation of ‘decline jurisdiction’ and heavily criticised the same saying it is nothing but colonial mindset and reiterated judicial sovereignty.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court in its final judgement held that
- Writ petition is disposed off
- Habeas corpus is not maintainable to enforce foreign court order
- Mother’s custody over the child is reaffirmed
- The father can have visitation rights, along with 30 minutes video call with the child daily.
CONCLUSION
The honourable High Court by way of this judgement underscores the importance of child welfare and how it overrides procedural and jurisdictional considerations. Even though the Court considered comity of courts and UK court orders, it underscored the importance of parens patriae. Thus, it held that habeas corpus is not maintainable to enforce foreign orders.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: AARSHITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
Read the copy of judgement copy here
