1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4987 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.17166/2021)
ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA       …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.       …RESPONDENT(S)
 
J U D G M E N T
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.   This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated
07.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in   Writ   Petition   (Habeas   Corpus)   No.76   of   2020.   The   appellant
herein   filed   the   said   Writ   Petition   seeking   the   following   main
relief:
“Issue   a   Writ   of   Habeas   Corpus   or   any   other
appropriate   writ,   order   or   direction   directing   the
Respondents to secure the  minor Aarya Ranjini Rohith, the
only child of the Petitioner, aged about 9 years, and produce
the   minor   Aarya   Ranjini   Rohith   before   this   Hon’ble   Court
and   hand   over   the   custody   of   the   said   minor   child   to   the

2
Petitioner   who   is   the   father   of   the   minor,   so   that   the   child
can be taken to the United States of America where he was
born   and   is   a   citizen   of   and   where   he   was   living   and
studying in school”.
3.     As   per   the   impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court   rejected   the
writ   petition,   but   subject   to   the   visitation   rights   provided,
thereunder,  to  the  appellant.  It  is  challenging   the  same  that  the
above appeal has been preferred. Shorn of details, the case of the
appellant may be stated as hereunder:  
             “The petitioner  has  been residing  in USA for  the past
two   decades   or   thereabouts.   On   19.03.2008   the   marriage
between   him   and   Respondent   No.3   was   conducted   as   per
Hindu   rites   and   ceremonies   at   Bengaluru.     Soon   after   the
marriage they shifted to USA and made it their matrimonial
home. Both of them applied for Green Card (officially known
as   Permanent   Resident   Card)   and   obtained   the   same   on
07.09.2010.   It   makes   them   entitled   to   live   and   work
permanently   in   USA.   On   03.02.2011   their   son   Aarya
Ranjani   Rohith   was   born   in   Washington,   USA   and   he   is   a
naturalised   American   Citizen   with   an   American   Passport.
The child was studying in the Third Standard in the Christa
McAuliffe  Elementary  School   in  Washington   School  District
during the year 2019­20.”    
4.       Conflicts   and   confrontation   occurred   in   the   connubial
relationship and they ultimately culminated in the incident which
is   the   genesis   of   this   proceeding.   According   to   the   appellant,   on
03.03.2020,   Respondent   No.3   came   to   Bengaluru   in   India   with
the   child,   without   his   consent.   At   that   time,   the   appellant   was

3
already in India to attend his ailing mother viz., from 27.02.2020
till 09.03.2020. Upon reaching USA he realized that the child was
missing from the matrimonial home. He made initial enquiries at
the   school,   in   vain,   and   thereupon   lodged   a   complaint   with   the
Office   of   Children’s   Issues,   USA,   alleging   that   the   child   was
kidnapped   by   respondent   No.3­wife.     Later,   in   the   evening   he
could contact his father­in­law in India and on being informed of
the availability of his wife and minor child at home in Bengaluru
he withdrew the said complaint on 11.03.2020. Subsequently, he
filed   the   Habeas   Corpus   writ   petition   before   High   Court   of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in September, 2020.  He has also filed a
Custody Petition in the Superior Court of Washington, County of
King,   on   22.1.2020   and   obtained   an   ex­parte   order   dated
26.10.2020.   The   respondent   was   directed   to   return   the   child   to
the   United   States.   On   29.10.2020   respondent   No.3   participated
in   the   proceedings   before   the   US  Court   and  moved   a   motion   for
vacating   the   ex­parte   order.   Consequently, the   ex­parte   order  to
return   the   child   was   vacated.   Later,   respondent   No.3   filed   a
petition   challenging   the   jurisdiction   of   the   US   Court   and   as   per
order dated 15.01.2020 the US Court upheld its jurisdiction over
the minor child. Still later, she herself invoked the jurisdiction of

4
the   Superior   Court   of   the   State   of   Washington   In   and   For   King
County,   seeking   temporary   orders   of   child   support   and   spousal
support as also for appointment of a parenting evaluator. The US
Court   passed   an   order   on   09.03.2021   granting   her   spousal
support  of  $5000  USD  per   month  subject  to  conditions.  The  US
Court   also   passed   an   order   directing   her   to   return   the   child   to
US. Earlier, respondent No.3 filed a custody petition bearing G &
W   No.246/2020   before   the   Family   Court   Bengaluru.   It   was
dismissed   as   being   not   maintainable   for   want   of   jurisdiction
under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. (Now, the
matter   is   pending   before   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   in   Civil
Revision   Petition   No.   318/2021).   According   to   the   appellant,   in
the   circumstances   only   the   US   Courts   got   jurisdiction   to   decide
the question of custody of the minor child. The contention of the
appellant is that the High Court had ignored the orders of the US
Court and also failed to take a proper decision on the question as
to what would be in the best interest of the child.   The appellant
has taken up contentions and also produced documents in a bid
to establish the affinity and affection of the child towards him, in
this   proceeding.     Obviously,   his   attempt   is   to   establish   that   for
the interest of the child, the child should return to US.

5
5. Respondent   No.3   resisted   the   contentions   of   the   appellant.
Before   the   High   Court   she   contended   that   though   the   child   was
brought   to   India   without   the   appellant’s   consent   subsequently
she   was   permitted   to   have   the   custody   of   the   child   by   the
appellant   himself   as   also   by   the   US   Courts.   In   support   of   the
contention   that   the   appellant   had   given   consent   for   keeping   the
child in her custody she relied on an e­mail sent by the appellant
herein on 15.03.2020. The fact is that the child is now, admitted
in   a   school   in   Bengaluru   and   he   is   now   pursuing   his   studies
there.   Obviously,   respondent   No.3   had   raised   the   contentions
before the High Court to establish that the child was not in illegal
or unlawful custody and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to
the   prayer   sought   for   and   on   the   contrary,   she   is   entitled   to
continue with the custody of the minor child.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the
High Court, as per the impugned order, rejected the contentions
of   the   appellant   that   the   child   is   in   unlawful   custody   and
respondent No.3 has been continuing with the custody of child in
derogation of the orders of the US Courts to return the child     to
USA.   The   impugned   judgment   would   reveal   that   the   court   had
interacted   with   the   child   in   the   chambers   and  ascertained   as   to

6
whether   he   was   staying   with   the   mother   under   compulsion.
Paragraph 85 of the impugned judgment would reflect what had
transpired during such interaction. It would reveal that the child
had   expressed   his   desire   to   stay   with   his   mother   and   further
informed   that  he  was  comfortable   in   the  school   and  studying   in
the   school   for   the   past   one   year.   He   had   also   divulged   the   fact
that   he   was   not   facing   any   difficulty   in   his   schooling   as   also   in
his   stay   at   Bengaluru.   On   an   analysis   of   the   rival   contentions
and the facts mentioned in paragraph 85 the High Court came to
the conclusion that the child is comfortable and feels secured in
the   custody   of   his   mother   in   Bengaluru.   Ultimately,   the   High
Court   rejected   the   writ   petition,   but   subject   to   the   visitation
rights, specifically  mentioned  in  paragraphs 89 to  93 therein.  In
this   circumstances,   present   appeal   has   been   preferred   assailing
the judgment of the High Court dated 07.09.2021.
7.   Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
8. At   the   outset   we   may   state   that   in   a   matter   involving   the
question of custody of a child it has to be borne in mind that the
question   ‘what   is   the   wish/desire   of   the   child’   is   different   and
distinct  from   the question  ‘what  would  be  in the best interest of

7
the   child’.   Certainly,   the   wish/desire   of   the   child   can   be
ascertained   through   interaction   but   then,   the   question   as   to
‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be
decided   by   the   court   taking   into   account   all   the   relevant
circumstances.   When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to
part   their   ways   as   parthian   shot   they   may   level   extreme
allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy
to have the custody of the child.  In the circumstances, we are of
the   view   that   for   considering   the   claim   for   custody   of   a   minor
child,   unless   very   serious,   proven   conduct   which   should   make
one   of   them   unworthy   to   claim   for   custody   of   the   child
concerned,   the   question   can   and   shall   be   decided   solely   looking
into   the   question   as   to,   ‘what   would   be   the   best   interest   of   the
child   concerned’.   In   other   words,   welfare   of   the   child   should   be
the paramount consideration. In that view of the matter we think
it   absolutely   unnecessary   to   discuss   and   deal   with   all   the
contentions   and   allegations   in   their   respective   pleadings   and
affidavits.                  
9 .   To   answer   the   stated   question   and   also   on   the   question   of
jurisdiction   we   do   not   think   it   necessary   to   conduct   a   deep
survey on the authorities This Court in  Nithya Anand Raghawan

8
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [(2017) 8 SCC 454] , reiterated
the   principle   laid   in   V.   Ravi   Chandran   Vs.   Union   of   India
[(2010) 1 SCC 174]  and further held thus :­
“In exercise of summary jurisdiction, the court must
be satisfied and of the opinion that the proceedings
instituted   before   it   was   in   close   proximity   and
filed   promptly   after   the   child   was   removed
from his/her native state   and brought within its
territorial   jurisdiction,   the   child   has   not   gained
roots   here   and   further   that   it   will   be   in   the
child’s   welfare   to   return   to   his   native   state
because   of   the   difference   in   language   spoken   or
social   customs   and   contacts   to   which   he/she   has
been   accustomed   or   such   other   tangible   reasons.
In   such   a   case   the   court   need   not   resort   to   an
elaborate   inquiry   into   the   merits   of   the   paramount
welfare   of   the   child   but   leave   that   inquiry   to   the
foreign court by directing return of the child.    Be it
noted that in  exceptional cases  the court can
still   refuse   to   issue   direction   to   return   the
child   to   the   native   state   and   more
particularly in spite of a pre­existing order of
the   foreign   court   in   that   behalf,   if   it   is
satisfied   that   the   child’s   return   may   expose
him to a grave risk of harm ”.
 (Emphasis added)
10. In  Ravi Chandran’s  case (supra), this Court took note of the
actual   role   of   the   High   Courts   in   the   matter   of   examination   of
cases involving claim of custody of a minor based on the principle

9
of   parens   patriae   jurisdiction   considering   the   fact   that   it   is   the
minor who is within the jurisdiction of the court. Based on such
consideration   it   was   held   that   even   while   considering   Habeas
Corpus   writ   petition   qua   a   minor,   in   a   given   case,   the   High
Courts may direct for return of the child or decline to change the
custody  of   the   child  taking   into   account  the   attending   facts  and
circumstances as also the settled legal position. In  Nitya Anand’s
case   this   Court   had   also   referred   to   the   decision   in   Dhanwanti
Joshi Vs. Madhav Unde [(1998) 1 SCC 112]   which in turn was
rendered   after   referring   to   the   decision   of   the   Privy   Council   in
Mckee   Vs.   Mckee   [(1951)   AC   352] .   In   Mckee’s   case   the   Privy
Council held that the order of the foreign court would yield to the
welfare   and   that   the   comity   of   courts   demanded   not   its
enforcement,   but   its   grave  consideration.   Though,  India   is   not   a
signatory   to   Hague   Convention   of   1980,   on   the   “Civil   Aspects   of
International Child Abduction”, this Court, virtually, imbibing the
true spirit of the principle of   parens patriae   jurisdiction, went on
to hold in Nithya Anand Raghavan’s case thus:
“40.   ...   As   regards   the   non­Convention   countries,
the   law   is   that   the   court   in   the   country   to   which
the   child   has   been   removed   must   consider   the
question on merits bearing the welfare of the child

10
as   of   paramount   importance   and  reckon   the  order
of the foreign court as only a factor to be taken into
consideration,   unless   the   court   thinks   it   fit   to
exercise   summary   jurisdiction   in   the   interests   of
the child and its prompt return is for its welfare. In
exercise   of   summary   jurisdiction,   the   court   must
be satisfied and of the opinion that the proceeding
instituted before it was in close proximity and filed
promptly after the child was removed from his/her
native   state   and   brought   within   its   territorial
jurisdiction,   the   child   has   not   gained   roots   here
and   further   that   it   will   be   in   the   child’s   welfare   to
return to his native state because of the difference
in language spoken or social customs and contacts
to   which   he/she   has   been   accustomed   or   such
other   tangible   reasons.   In   such   a   case   the   court
need   not   resort   to   an   elaborate   inquiry   into   the
merits   of   the   paramount   welfare   of   the   child   but
leave   that   inquiry   to   the   foreign   court   by   directing
return  of  the  child.  Be  it  noted  that  in   exceptional
cases the court can still refuse to issue direction to
return   the   child   to   the   native   state   and   more
particularly   in   spite   of   a   pre­existing   order   of   the
foreign court in that behalf, if it is satisfied that the
child’s   return   may   expose   him   to   a   grave   risk   of
harm.   This   means   that   the   courts   in   India,   within
whose   jurisdiction   the   minor   has   been   brought
must   “ordinarily”   consider   the   question   on   merits,
bearing   in   mind   the   welfare   of   the   child   as   of
paramount   importance   whilst   reckoning   the   pre­
existing order of the foreign court if any as only one
of   the   factors   and   not   get   fixated   therewith.   In
either   situation   –   be   it   a   summary   inquiry   or   an
elaborate   inquiry   –   the   welfare   of   the   child   is   of
paramount   consideration.   Thus,   while   examining
the issue the courts in India are free to decline the
relief   of   return   of   the   child   brought   within   its
jurisdiction,   if   it   is   satisfied   that   the   child   is   now
settled in its new environment or if it would expose
the   child   to   physical   or   psychological   harm   or
otherwise place the child in an intolerable position

11
or   if   the   child   is   quite   mature   an   objects   to   its
return.   We   are   in   respectful   agreement   with   the
aforementioned exposition.”
11 .   Having   taken   note   of   the   position   thus   settled   in   the   said
decisions   we   will   now   consider   the   question   whether   such   an
exercise   had   been   undertaken   properly   in   this   case.   This   is
because in this case foreign Court, as noted above, passed orders
for  the return of the child to USA. There is nothing  on record to
show that such an order passed on the second occasion was also
vacated   subsequently.   True   that   the   first   order   to   that   effect
passed on 26.10.2020 was subsequently vacated at the instance
of   the   third   respondent   on   30.10.2020.   However,   going   by   the
records   the   subsequent   order   passed   in   March   2021   Superior
Court   of   Washington,   County   of   King   for   the   return   of   the   child
owing to non­compliance led to further order       for contempt on
29.4.2021. The  High  Court,  obviously,  observed that  though  the
U.S Court subsequently suspended the order of spousal support
did   not   pass   any   order   regarding   the   custody   of   the   child   and
hence,   custody   of   the   child   is   continuing   with   respondent   No.3.
We   have   referred   to   those   aspects   solely   for   the   purpose   of

12
pointing   out   that   the   High   Court   was   aware   of   the   existence   of
order for the return of the child by the US Court.      
12 .  Be that as it may, we will now consider the question whether
consideration   was   bestowed   by   the   High   Court   in   the   matter   in
terms of the position settled by this Court in the aforementioned
decisions i.e., by giving predominant importance to the welfare of
the   child.     A   scanning   of   the   impugned   judgment   would   reveal
that   the   High   Court   had   rightly   identified   the   vital   aspect   that
paramount   consideration   should   be   given   to   the   welfare   of   the
child while considering the matter.
13 .       We   have   stated   earlier   that   the   question   ‘what   is   the
wish/desire of the child’ can be ascertained through interaction,
but   then,   the   question   as   to   ‘what   would   be   the   best   interest   of
the   child’   is   a   matter   to   be   decided   by   the   court   taking   into
account all the relevant circumstances. A careful scrutiny of the
impugned   judgment   would,   however,   reveal   that   even   after
identifying   the   said   question   rightly   the   High   Court   had   swayed
away   from   the   said   point   and   entered   into   consideration   of
certain aspects not relevant for the said purpose. We will explain
the  raison d’etre  for the said remark.

13
14 . The High Court, after taking note of the various proceedings
initiated by the appellant before the US Courts formed an opinion
that he had initiated such proceedings only  with an intention to
enhance   his   chance   of   success   in   the   Habeas   Corpus   Writ
Petition and to pre­empt any move by the wife (respondent No.3)
for   custody   by   approaching   the   Indian   Courts.   In   other   words,
the   initiation   of   proceedings   before   the   US   Court   was   motivated
and   definitely   not   in   good   faith   and   was   also   not   in   the   best
interests of the son. In this context, it is relevant to note that US
Court   concerned   had,   admittedly,   ordered   for   the   return   of   the
child   and   owing   to   the   non­compliance   with   the   said   order
initiated   action   for   contempt.   The   spousal   support   order   passed
by   the   US   Court   was   also   suspended   for   the   reason   of   non­
compliance with the order for return of the child. When US Court
was moved and the court had passed orders the above mentioned
observation   can   only   be   regarded   as   one   made   at   a   premature
stage   and   it   was   absolutely   uncalled   for   and   it   virtually   affected
the   process   of   consideration   of   the   issue   finally.   When   the   US
Court   passed   such   orders   and   not   orders   on   the   custody   of   the
child   it   ought   not   to   have   been   taken   as   permission   for
respondent   No.3   to   keep   the   custody   of   the   child.   At   any   rate,

14
after   the   order   for   return   of   the   child   and   orders   for   contempt
such   a   plea   of   the   respondent   No.3   ought   not   to   have   been
entertained.
15. Considering   the   fact   that   the   marriage   between   the
appellant   and   respondent   No.3   was   conducted   in   Bengaluru   in
accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, the High Court held
that   the   US   Courts   got   no   jurisdiction   to   entertain   any   dispute
arising   out   of   the   marriage.   This   conclusion   was   arrived   at
without   taking   into   account   the   efficacy   of   the   order   passed   by
the   US   Court.     It   was   not   strictly   for   the   return   of   respondent
No.3   but   was   an   order   intending   to   facilitate   the   return   of   a
naturalised   citizen   of   America   holding   an   American   Passport.
Paragraph   85   of   the   impugned   judgment   would   reveal   that   the
High   Court   had   enquired   about   the   desire   and   comfort   of   the
child   with   respect   to   his   schooling   and   stay   during   the
interaction. The court found that the child expressed no difficulty
in his schooling or his stay in Bengaluru and ultimately satisfied
that   the   child   is   comfortable   and   secure   with   staying   with   his
mother.

15
16.  The child in  question is a boy, now around  11 years and a
naturalised   US   citizen   with   an   American   passport   and   his
parents   viz.,   the   appellant   and   respondent   No.3   are   holders   of
Permanent US Resident Cards. These aspects were not given due
attention.   So   also,   the   fact   that   child   in   question   was   born   in
USA   on   03.02.2011   and   till   the   year   2020   he   was   living   and
studying   there,   was   also   not   given   due   weight   while   considering
question of welfare of the child.   Merely because he was brought
to India by the mother on 03.03.2020 and got him admitted in a
school and that he is now feeling comfortable with schooling and
stay   in   Bengaluru   could   not   have   been   taken   as   factors   for
considering   the   welfare   of   the   boy   aged   11   years   born   and   lived
nearly for a decade in USA. The very fact that he is a naturalised
citizen   of   US   with   American   passport   and   on   that   account   he
might, in all probability, have good avenues and prospects in the
country   where   he   is   a   citizen.     This   crucial   aspect  has   not   been
appreciated   at   all.       In   our   view,   taking   into   account   the   entire
facts and circumstances and the environment in which the child
had   born   and   was   brought   up   for   about   a   decade   coupled   with
the   fact   that   he   is   a   naturalised   American   citizen,   his   return   to
America would be in his best interest. In this case it is also to be

16
noted   that   on   two   occasions   American   courts   ordered   to   return
the   child   to   USA.   True   that   the   first   order   to   that   effect   was
vacated at the instance of respondent No.3. However, taking into
account   all   aspects,   we   are   of   the   view   that   it   is   not   a   fit   case
where courts in India should refuse to acknowledge the orders of
the US Courts directing return of the minor child to the appellant
keeping   in   view   the   best   interests   of   the   child.     In   our   view,   a
consideration   on   the   point   of   view   of   the   welfare   of   the   child
would   only   support   the   order   for   the   return   of   the   child   to   his
native country viz., USA.  For, the child is a naturalised American
citizen   with   American   passport.   He   has   been   brought   up   in   the
social   and   culture   value   milieu   of   USA   and,   therefore,
accustomed   to   the   lifestyle,   language,   custom,   rules   and
regulations of his native country viz., USA. Further, he will have
better   avenues   and   prospects   if   he   returns   to   USA,   being   a
naturalised American citizen. 
17 .   In this case during the course of the arguments the learned
counsel   for   the   appellant   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   submitted
that in case respondent No.3 wants to return and stay in US with
her   parents   so   as   to   have   proximity   to   and   opportunity   to   take

17
care of the child the appellant is prepared to do the needful, if the
respondent   No.3   so   desires.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the
appellant   is   also   prepared   to   find   suitable   accommodation   for
them in that regard.
18. In the light of the above discussion, we allow the appeal and
the   impugned   judgment   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   Writ
Petition (Habeas Corpus) No.76/2020 is set aside. Consequently,
the   writ   petition   stands   allowed   and   we   issue   following   further
directions:
(i) Respondent No.3 shall ensure that the child returns back to
United   States   of   America   forthwith.   In   that   regard   respondent
No.3   as   well   as   the   appellant,   whoever   is   in   possession   of   the
American   passport  of   the   child  in   question,   shall   do  the   needful
in   accordance   with   the   law   to   enable   the   child’s   return   to   his
native country viz., USA;
(ii) Respondent   No.3   and   the   appellant   shall   take   necessary
action  to   get  the  child  relieved  from  the  present   school  and   also
to get him admitted in any school in USA where the appellant is
presently   residing,   without   causing   much   interruption   to   his
studies;

18
(iii) Respondent  No.3, if she wants to  accompany  the  child and
stay   back   in   USA   will   be   at   liberty   to   do   so.   If   she   requires
arrangement   of   accommodation   for   herself   and   her   parents   in
USA she may intimate her desire in that regard to the appellant.
Upon such intimation in writing the appellant shall forthwith do
the needful to honour the assurance given to this Court, as noted
above,   so   as   to   enable   respondent   No.3   and   her   parents,   as   the
case   may   be,   to   accompany   the   child   and   also   to   stay   back   in
USA   provided   they   fulfil   the   necessary   legal   formalities   for   their
travel and stay in USA;
(iv) All   necessary   legal   formalities   to   enable   the   child’s   smooth
return   to   USA   shall   be   taken   by   respondent   No.3   and   the
appellant expeditiously at any rate within a period of two months
so   that   there   will   be   minimum   interruption   in   pursuing   the
studies of the child.
19 .   We   also   make   it   clear   that   if   respondent   No.3   requires
custody   or   visitation   rights   of   the   child,   she   may   do   so   by
invoking   the   jurisdiction   of   appropriate   forum   in   USA.     Further,
the   observations   made   in   this   judgment   shall   not   come   in   the

19
way   of   respondent   No.3,   as   the   stated   proceedings   will   have   to
proceed independently.
20. There will be no order as to costs.
21 . The appeal is disposed of as above.
22 . All pending applications are disposed of.
       ………….................J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
     ….............................J.
          (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
29 July, 2022.