Supreme Court on Cross-Border Custody: Welfare of the Child Above All

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in a complex family and custody dispute involving parties residing in both India and the UK. The case, Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors. (2025), highlights key legal principles in cross-border child custody matters, the application of habeas corpus in custody disputes, and the paramountcy of the child’s welfare.

What's The Matter?

The case arose from a prolonged estrangement between the husband (Father) and wife (Mother), married in 2010, with two minor children: a daughter residing in the UK with the mother and a son residing with paternal grandparents in India.

The mother relocated the children to the UK without the father's consent, leading to litigation in both jurisdictions concerning custody, visitation rights, and travel restrictions.

The father sought the children's return and custody through courts in India and the UK, including filing a habeas corpus petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for the son’s illegal custody.

Meanwhile, the UK courts dealt with similar petitions concerning the daughter and the mother’s right to stay.

What Court Said?

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts which revealed that while the daughter was residing with the mother in the UK, the son had actually been staying with the paternal grandparents in India for an extended period.

The mother’s failure to disclose this crucial information misled the UK courts, compromising the integrity of judicial processes in both jurisdictions. Despite the legal complexities involved in cross-border custody and the multiplicity of proceedings, the Court emphasized that the overriding consideration must be the child’s best interests.

The Court noted the son’s deep integration into Indian life, having been born in the UK but having spent most of his life in India under the care of his father and grandparents.

It recognized the father as the natural guardian and upheld the interim custody to him, while simultaneously facilitating avenues for the mother and maternal grandparents to maintain contact with the child.

Balancing the competing claims, the judgment directed formal custody proceedings under Indian law to be initiated, ensuring a structured and legally sound resolution.

Importantly, the Court called attention to the failings on the part of the mother in deliberately withholding the son’s location and disrupting the father’s access, which was detrimental to the child’s welfare. It condemned any actions or strategies by parents that prioritize personal disputes over the psychological and emotional well-being of children caught in the crossfire.

The Court also illustrated the principle that judicial comity between different jurisdictions cannot override the protective mandate courts hold as parens patriae to safeguard minors.

This judgment serves as a guiding precedent in an era where families increasingly span global borders and raise difficult questions about jurisdiction, habitual residence, and custodial rights. It highlights the necessity for all parties, and courts alike, to act transparently and in good faith, placing the child’s security, stability, and nurturing environment at the forefront of every decision.

By reaffirming that custodial rights are secondary to a child's holistic welfare, the Supreme Court reinforces a humane and pragmatic approach to family law that transcends mere legal technicalities or territorial claims.

Overall the Komal Krishan Arora case reinforces the indispensable legal doctrine that in child custody disputes, especially those with international dimensions, the best interests of the child must serve as the guiding light.

It marks a significant affirmation of the Indian judiciary’s commitment to protecting children caught in fraught familial and jurisdictional conflicts, ensuring their rights and welfare remain the priority amid complex legal battles.

Case Details:  KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA VS. SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP CHUGH - Crl.A. No. 4052/2025 - Diary Number 29759 / 2021