Mother granted custody of son, overturning Family Court's jurisdiction decision; father directed to seek custody in U.S.
In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court has set aside the order of the Family Court, Bengaluru, which had claimed jurisdiction over a guardianship petition involving a minor child. The High Court ruled that the child's ordinary residence is in the United States, thereby granting the mother custody and allowing the father to pursue custody rights in U.S. courts.
The case involved Smt. Sneha Harishchandra Sumithra and Mr. Sudhir Das Venkata Das, who had been embroiled in a prolonged custody battle over their son. The child, born in India, had lived in the United States with his parents before coming to India for a family ritual. Following the ritual, the father decided to stay back in India, while the mother returned to the U.S. to continue her career. The mother had obtained an ex-parte order from a New Jersey court directing the father to return the child to the U.S.
The Family Court in Bengaluru initially rejected the mother's application questioning its jurisdiction, citing the child's presence in India at the time of filing. However, the High Court, presided by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, highlighted that jurisdiction cannot be artificially created through unilateral relocation and emphasized the importance of the child's ordinary residence.
Justice Kanneganti underscored the paramount importance of the child's welfare, noting that prolonged separation from the mother could have lasting emotional consequences. The judgment stressed that custody disputes must prioritize the child's emotional and psychological welfare, rather than be treated as adversarial battles between parents.
The High Court ordered the father to hand over custody of the child to the mother by May 2026, allowing the father to seek custody through U.S. courts, which have jurisdiction given the child's ordinary residence. The mother is required to bring the child to India every six months to ensure he maintains a relationship with both parents.
This judgment reflects the court's commitment to the child's welfare and its efforts to prevent forum shopping and jurisdictional manipulation in custody disputes. It serves as a reminder that custody litigation should not perpetuate emotional separation between a child and a loving parent and underscores the need for sensitivity and urgency in resolving such disputes.
Bottom Line:
Guardianship and jurisdiction - Determination of ordinary residence of a minor child for guardianship and custody disputes under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Statutory provision(s): Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 9
