Karnataka High Court Directs Mother to Return to US With Minor Son After Defying Custody Order
The Karnataka High Court has directed an Indian mother to return to the United States with her two-year-old son after finding that she had removed the child from the jurisdiction of a US court despite orders restricting his removal.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.P. Vivekananda passed the order on October 1 in a habeas corpus petition filed by the child’s father.
The child, an American citizen by birth, was born in the United States on February 13, 2024. His parents had married in April 2022 and had been living together in the US.
The dispute began when the father learned that the mother was planning to travel to India with their son. He approached a court in Washington seeking protection of his custodial rights and an order preventing the child from being removed from the state.
On November 1, 2024, the Superior Court of Washington, Clark County, issued a temporary protection order restraining the mother from interfering with the father’s custody rights and from removing the child from Washington.
Despite the order, the mother travelled to India with the child when he was around nine months old. They subsequently began residing in Bengaluru.
The Washington court later directed the mother to return the child to the United States. An order dated March 26, 2025 directed his return and placed him in the father’s exclusive care. The direction was reiterated on May 16, 2025.
The father then approached the Karnataka High Court, alleging that the mother had continued to retain the child in India despite the orders of the US court.
His lawyers argued that the child’s ordinary residence was in the United States, that he was an American citizen and that the matrimonial home of the parties had been established there.
They contended that the custody dispute was closely connected with the US and should therefore be decided by the competent court in Washington.
The mother opposed the petition and disputed the allegation that she had abducted the child. Her counsel argued that the trip to India had been planned and undertaken with the knowledge of the father.
She also contended that the temporary protection order relied upon by the father had subsequently been dismissed by the Washington court on June 6, 2025.
The mother further raised allegations of matrimonial cruelty, abandonment and financial deprivation. She expressed concerns regarding the father’s alleged alcohol and substance use, parenting abilities and suitability to have exclusive custody of the child.
She maintained that the child was safe, well cared for and lawfully residing in India. She also argued that the father had not been completely denied access, as video calls were being facilitated and he could travel to India to meet the child.
The Karnataka High Court, however, found that the Bengaluru family court had not passed any order granting the mother custody of the child.
The Bench also noted that there was nothing on record indicating any imminent danger to the child from his father.
The court observed that the mother had removed the child from the jurisdiction of the competent US Family Court without informing the father and in violation of orders passed there.
The judges held that the mother could not unilaterally remove the child from the jurisdiction of the court that was already seized of the custody dispute and thereby prevent the child from having the company of his father.
The High Court consequently directed the mother to return to the United States, describing it as the child’s place of birth and ordinary residence, and to pursue her rights before the competent court there.
Importantly, the Karnataka High Court did not itself finally decide the competing allegations concerning custody, parenting or matrimonial conduct.
Instead, it directed the parties to have those issues determined by the competent US court, where the custody proceedings were already pending.
The court also directed the father to make arrangements for the return of both the mother and the child to the United States.
The father was further directed to bear the mother’s expenses until she secures suitable employment and accommodation in the US.
The ruling highlights the difficulties that arise when a child is moved across international borders during an ongoing custody dispute.
It also underscores the importance Indian courts may place on the jurisdiction of the foreign court where the child ordinarily resides, particularly when a parent removes the child despite an existing judicial order.
At the same time, the decision does not mean that allegations concerning the child’s welfare raised by the mother have been finally rejected on their merits. Those issues remain available for consideration before the US court dealing with the underlying custody dispute.
The Karnataka High Court’s intervention therefore effectively sends the custody battle back to the jurisdiction in which it began, directing the mother and child to return to the United States while leaving the ultimate custody determination to the competent Washington court.
