The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that although a habeas corpus petition is maintainable in child custody disputes, the welfare and best interests of the children outweigh a foreign custody decree.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to transfer custody of two minor children to their father. The father relied on a final custody order from a Texas court. However, the Court held that child welfare remains the top priority. A foreign decree alone cannot decide custody.
A Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi delivered the ruling in Ankur Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
The father filed a petition under Article 226. He sought a writ of habeas corpus to produce his two sons. He also asked the Court to grant him custody based on the Texas order dated April 14, 2025.
The Texas court had named him the sole managing conservator. It also gave him the right to decide the children’s residence. He argued that the children should return to the United States.
The respondents challenged the petition’s maintainability. They relied on an earlier Gwalior Bench ruling. That decision had held such petitions not maintainable in custody disputes.
The Court disagreed. It held that habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters. It also declared the earlier ruling per incuriam.
However, the Court clarified one key point. Habeas corpus cannot enforce a foreign custody order automatically. Courts must assess child welfare first.
The father stated that the family lived in the United States since 2017. They moved to Texas in 2022. The children spent most of their lives there.
In August 2024, the mother travelled to India with the children. She had return tickets for December 2024. However, she did not return. The father claimed she denied him access to the children.
He later approached the Texas court. The court passed an order in his favour when the mother did not appear.
The mother argued that the children’s welfare must prevail. She said the children now live and study in India. According to her, a sudden return would harm them.
She also argued that foreign orders are not automatically enforceable in such cases.
The Court identified three main questions:
- Must Indian courts enforce foreign custody orders automatically
- Is the children’s stay in India illegal
- What arrangement serves the children’s best interests
The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments. It noted that comity of courts is relevant but not decisive. Welfare of the child always comes first.
The judges interacted with the children in chambers. They found the children comfortable with their mother. The children had lived in India for eight months. They were enrolled in school and appeared settled.
The Court also noted that:
No allegation of neglect existed against the mother
The father lived alone in the United States
The children needed maternal care at a young age
The Court refused to transfer custody. It held that enforcing the Texas order would not serve the children’s welfare.
The Bench clarified that it did not decide permanent custody. It only assessed welfare in the habeas corpus petition.
The petition was dismissed without costs.
