The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently passed a significant judgment in a child custody case involving an international parental dispute. The Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a Canadian woman, seeking custody of her minor child, who was allegedly being wrongfully detained in India by the child’s biological father.
Read also: Abandoned Watercourses Not Part of ‘Village Common Land’ Can Be Sold: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The mother, represented by Advocate Abhinav Sood, claimed that the father had violated a Canadian court order which had only permitted a temporary visit to India. The father was allowed to bring the child to India for just 2–3 weeks, under specific conditions and an undertaking. However, he failed to return to Canada within the stipulated time and continued to stay in India.
The High Court observed:
“He not only disobeyed the said directions of the Canadian Court but also obtained extension of his VISA from the Indian Government, while suppressing material facts, particularly the subsequent order dated 13.11.2024, passed by the competent Canadian Court, granting sole and final custody of the alleged detenue to the petitioner and designating her as the exclusive decision-making authority.”
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul emphasized that Indian courts cannot be used as a tool for foreign nationals to bypass legal procedures in their home countries. She said:
"Indian Courts cannot be reduced to instruments of convenience for litigating foreign nationals seeking to sidestep judicial proceedings in their own jurisdictions."
The judge also pointed out that, although the father had received a visa extension from the Indian government till January 2026, the child's visa had already expired. Since the child is a Canadian citizen, his continued stay in India is unauthorized.
Highlighting the child’s welfare as the central concern, the Court noted:
“Even if the father is of impeccable character and fully capable of caring for the child... the welfare of the child may still demand that custody remain with the mother.”
In cases involving young children or those in delicate health, a mother's instinctual and emotional care holds significant weight. The court stressed that while international comity—the respect between countries’ legal decisions—must be considered, it should not outweigh the best interest of the child.
“While international comity must be respected, the decisive factor must always be the best interest of the child.”
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the father’s continued custody of the child was legally untenable. It ordered that the child be returned to Canada in the custody of the mother, in line with the Canadian court’s final custody order.
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate with Mr. Sayyam Garg, Ms. Anmol Gupta and Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Saron, Advocate with Mr. M.B. Rajwade, Mr. Anuj Arya and Mr. Naveen, Advocates for respondent No.8.
Title: Camila Carolina de Matos Vilas Boas v. Union of India and others
