In a significant ruling on child custody disputes involving international dimensions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to enforce a foreign court’s custody order, holding that the welfare of the children must remain the top priority.
The Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi delivered the verdict while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his two minor children from India.
The case, Ankur Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, revolved around a custody dispute between parents who had been residing in the United States.
The petitioner-father approached the High Court seeking production and custody of his two minor sons, relying on a custody order passed by a Texas court granting him exclusive rights. He alleged that the children were brought to India by their mother for a temporary visit but were wrongfully retained thereafter.
The father argued that the children were habitual residents of the United States and that their continued stay in India was illegal and against their welfare.
At the outset, the Court addressed whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters.
Rejecting objections, the Bench clarified that such petitions are indeed maintainable in exceptional cases. It relied on settled Supreme Court precedents to hold that courts can exercise jurisdiction where the custody of a child is alleged to be unlawful.
“The writ of habeas corpus in the matter of custody of a minor child is maintainable,” the Bench observed, while emphasizing that such power must be exercised cautiously and only when necessary.
A key issue before the Court was whether it was bound to enforce the custody order passed by the foreign court.
The Bench made it clear that while foreign judgments deserve respect, they are not conclusive.
“The doctrine of comity of courts cannot override the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child,” the Court noted.
It further clarified that habeas corpus proceedings cannot be used merely as a tool to execute foreign court orders.
The Court reiterated a consistent principle in Indian child custody law - the welfare and best interest of the child outweigh all other considerations, including legal rights of parents.
During the proceedings, the children were produced before the Bench. The judges interacted with them and noted that:
- The children had been living in India for several months
- They were enrolled in school and appeared well-settled
- They shared emotional comfort and attachment with their mother
“The children appear well settled in the present environment,” the Court recorded.
The Bench also took into account the children’s age, need for maternal care, and overall emotional and educational stability.
After examining all circumstances, the High Court concluded that transferring custody to the father based solely on the foreign decree would not serve the children’s welfare.
“We are of the considered view that the custody of the children cannot be directed to be handed over to the petitioner solely on the basis of a foreign decree,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that it had not adjudicated permanent custody rights but confined its decision to the welfare of the children.
Case Details
Case Title: Ankur Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: WP No. 23561 of 2025
Judges: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla & Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Decision Date: 20 April 2026
