Komal Krishan Arora vs Sandeep Kumar 2025 INSC 1123 - Child Custody

• Q: What was the central dispute in the case of "Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors."?
• • A: The central dispute revolved around the visitation and custody of two minor children, Miss N and Master K, amidst an ongoing marital discord between the father (Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Chugh) and mother (Latika Arora @ Latika Chugh).
• Q: Where were the children residing at the outset of the Supreme Court's involvement?
• • A: At the time, the minor daughter 'Miss N' was staying with the mother in England and Wales, while the minor son 'Master K' was staying with his maternal grandfather (appellant No. 1) in India.
• Q: What allegations did the father make regarding the mother's actions?
• • A: The father alleged that the mother left India for the United Kingdom on May 8, 2021, with both children without informing him or obtaining his consent. He later discovered that Master K was not in the UK with the mother but had been left with his maternal grandparents in Sonipat, India.
• Q: What legal actions did the father initiate in the UK and India?
• • A: The father filed an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the UK High Court of Justice, Family Division, contending that the mother wrongly removed the children from India without his knowledge. He sought their summary return to India and for the children to be made wards of the Court. He also filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on September 10, 2021, after suspecting Master K was not in the UK. Additionally, he filed a divorce petition in Noida on July 5, 2021.
• Q: What was the UK High Court's finding regarding the mother's conduct concerning Master K?
• • A: The UK High Court, in its judgment dated November 12, 2021, found that the mother "lured the court into error by failing to disclose that she had only removed Miss N to the UK and that Master K remained in India." The court explicitly stated that this "crude subterfuge... does the mother no credit at all".
• Q: What was the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's initial ruling regarding Master K's custody?
• • A: The High Court, via an order dated November 16, 2021, allowed the father's habeas corpus petition. It directed the mother's father (appellant No. 1) and brother (appellant No. 3) to hand over Master K to the father on December 6, 2021, at the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. The High Court also directed that Master K should not be permitted to travel to the UK pending determination of disputes.
• Q: What legal principle is paramount when deciding child custody matters, as reiterated by the Supreme Court?
• • A: The "best interest and the welfare of the child" is the paramount consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that considerations like the doctrine of comity of courts or legal rights of parents cannot override the child's welfare. Welfare is to be understood in its widest sense, including moral, religious, physical well-being, stability, security, loving care, and development of character.
• Q: Did the Supreme Court confirm the High Court's decision to grant interim custody of Master K to the father?
• • A: Yes, the Supreme Court was of the considered view that the welfare and best interest of Master K would be served if he continued with the father. Therefore, the High Court was justified in granting interim custody to the father, and its findings did not warrant any interference.
• Q: What were the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in its final order?
• • A: The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
  • • Custody of Master K is to be handed over by the maternal grandfather (appellant no. 1) to the father within fifteen days of the judgment, by September 30, 2025.
    • The father/mother shall file appropriate custody proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, within one month.
    • The mother/sibling of Master K shall have audio/video access every Saturday from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. (IST).
    • Upon the mother's visit to India, she shall have visitation rights every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at a mutually agreed place.
    • Maternal grandparents also have visitation rights every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m..
    • The father shall not take Master K outside the jurisdiction of India without the leave of the jurisdictional High Court.
    • The issue of Master K's citizenship will be subject to the outcome of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
    • The Juvenile Justice Board/Magistrate (Juvenile Justice) of the place where Master K stays with the father shall oversee and monitor his physical and psychological well-being through the Child Welfare Committee or a Social Welfare Officer.

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
• Neutral Citation:

Coram (Judges)

• Coram: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Vijay Bishnoi, J.

Judgment Date

• Date of Judgment: September 16, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

The judgment refers to several Supreme Court decisions:

1. Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
2. • Citation: (2019) 7 SCC 311
2. Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi)
3. • Citation: (2017) 8 SCC 454
3. Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
4. • Citation: (2023) 12 SCC 472
4. Sumedha Nagpal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
5. • Citation: (2000) 9 SCC 745
5. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal
6. • Citation: (1973) 1 SCC 840
6. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw
7. • Citation: (1987) 1 SCC 42
7. Muthuswami Chettiar v. K.M. Chinna Muthusami Moopanar
8. • Citation: 1934 SCC OnLine Mad 280
8. Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv Baijal
9. • Citation: (2009) 7 SCC 322
9. Neethu B. v. Rajesh Kumar
10. • Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1435

Other foreign cases and references:

• McGrath (Infants), In re (1893) 1 Ch 143 (CA)
• “O” (An Infant), In re 1965 Ch 23 (CA)
• Walker v. Walker & Harrison 1981 New Ze Recent Law 257

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Article 32 of the Constitution of India
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (implied through reference to Juvenile Justice Board/Magistrate)