The Delhi High Court child custody Canada ruling has held that a parent cannot ignore a valid foreign court order and later claim that the child’s prolonged stay in India justifies refusing repatriation. A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar directed a mother to return her minor child to the jurisdiction of the competent Canadian Court within six weeks. The Bench delivered the judgment in Karan Chopra v. State & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 1190/2020, while allowing the father’s habeas corpus petition seeking the child’s return to Canada. The Court reserved the judgment on March 13, 2026, and pronounced it on July 2, 2026.
Background of the Case
Karan Chopra moved to California, United States, in January 2013 on a work permit. He married Ashu Chopra through a registered marriage on December 24, 2014, followed by a ceremonial wedding on January 18, 2015.
The couple settled in California in February 2015. Their son, referred to as Master “S,” was born in San Jose on May 24, 2016, and is a United States citizen.
In August 2018, the family relocated to Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, after obtaining permanent residency. They established their matrimonial home there.
According to the father, matrimonial disputes arose later. On October 25, 2019, the mother left Canada with the minor child and travelled to India.
Canadian Court Proceedings
In December 2019, the father approached the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, seeking custody of the child and directions for his return.
The Canadian Court initially allowed the father to interact with the child through daily video conferencing.
Later, on March 19, 2020, the Court directed the child’s return to Ontario. It also granted temporary sole custody to the father and restrained the mother from removing the child from Ontario without permission.
When the mother did not comply with these directions, the father approached the Delhi High Court.
Father’s Arguments
The father argued that the parties had spent most of their married life in the United States and Canada.
He submitted that Canada was the child’s habitual residence before the mother brought him to India without his consent.
He also pointed out that he acted promptly by approaching the Canadian Court and later the Delhi High Court.
The father argued that the mother had voluntarily participated in the Canadian proceedings. She filed pleadings and sought relief before that Court. Therefore, she could not disregard its order merely because the decision went against her.
He further submitted that no evidence showed the child would face physical danger, emotional harm, or psychological trauma if he returned to Canada.
The father also assured the Court that he would arrange accommodation for the mother and child in Canada. He further agreed to reside separately while the custody proceedings remained pending.
Mother’s Arguments
The mother opposed the petition.
She argued that the father was effectively trying to enforce a foreign judgment through a habeas corpus petition.
She contended that the Canadian Court’s order was not binding on the Delhi High Court. According to her, it could serve only as one relevant factor while deciding the child’s welfare.
The mother also claimed that the father had failed to disclose before the Canadian Court that the child suffered from autism spectrum disorder and that divorce proceedings were pending.
She questioned the father’s financial ability to support the child in Canada.
She further argued that the child had lived in India since October 2019. During this period, he had settled into his school, family, and social environment. Removing him after more than six years, she argued, would seriously affect his welfare.
Court Rejects Maintainability Objection
The Delhi High Court rejected the mother’s preliminary objection.
The Bench clarified that the petition did not seek mere execution of a foreign court order.
Instead, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to determine whether the child’s continued stay in India was lawful and whether his welfare required repatriation.
The Court also noted that the mother had actively participated in the Canadian proceedings. She filed pleadings, opposed the father’s claims, and sought relief before that Court.
Having accepted the Canadian Court’s jurisdiction, she could not later ignore its binding effect simply because the decision was unfavourable.
Court Says Parent Cannot Benefit from Non-Compliance
The Bench held that the child’s prolonged stay in India resulted from the mother’s continued non-compliance with the Canadian Court’s order.
The Court ruled that no litigant can derive legal advantage from deliberately disobeying judicial orders.
It further observed that accepting such conduct would encourage forum shopping and allow parents to create a fait accompli by retaining children in another country.
The Bench therefore held that the doctrine of a child becoming “settled” in a particular jurisdiction cannot reward a parent who violates a valid judicial order.
Welfare of the Child Remains Paramount
The Court reiterated that the child’s welfare remains the foremost consideration in custody disputes.
However, the Bench clarified that courts cannot apply the welfare principle to legitimise a situation created through unilateral and unlawful conduct.
The Court found no evidence that returning to Canada would expose either the child or the mother to abuse, neglect, physical danger, or grave psychological harm.
It also found no material showing that the father posed any threat to the child’s physical, emotional, educational, or psychological well-being.
Court Finds Father Financially Capable
The Bench rejected the mother’s argument regarding the father’s financial capacity.
The Court examined his income affidavit and supporting documents. It found that he had stable employment and a substantial income in Canada.
The Court held that he could adequately provide for the child’s education, healthcare, residence, emotional well-being, and developmental needs.
It also noted that the child would continue to receive structured educational opportunities and specialised developmental support in Canada.
Court on Mother-Child Relationship
The Court acknowledged the strong emotional bond between the mother and the child.
It also recognised that the child currently depended more on the mother because he had lived with her for several years.
However, the Bench found no evidence that the father intended to alienate the child from the mother.
The Court observed that the competent Canadian Court could appropriately regulate visitation rights, communication, and parental access.
Final Directions
Allowing the writ petition, the Delhi High Court directed the mother to return the child to the jurisdiction of the competent Canadian Court within six weeks by handing over temporary custody to the father.
The parties must complete the handover before the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court on a mutually convenient date.
The father must file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks.
The mother may accompany the child to Canada if she chooses. She must inform the father at least four weeks before the proposed travel date.
If she travels to Canada, the father must provide her accommodation in the former matrimonial home while residing separately in another property.
The mother must also hand over the child’s passport and travel documents and complete the formalities for withdrawing him from his present school in India.
The father must secure admission for the child to an appropriate school in Canada with minimal disruption to his education.
If the mother fails to comply, the father may seek police assistance. The SHO of Police Station Vikas Puri has been directed to ensure compliance.
The Delhi High Court child custody Canada judgment reinforces that courts will not permit a parent to defeat a valid foreign custody order by retaining a child in India and later claiming that the child has developed roots here.
