Sharmila Velamur vs V. Sanjay 2025 INSC 299 - Child Custody - Foreign Court Order
Child Custody- The principle of comity of courts and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard- Such cases must be decided on the sole and predominant criterion of ‘what would serve the interests and welfare’ of the minor-The pre- existing order of a Foreign Court is merely one of the circumstances to consider when assessing the best interests and welfare of the person concerned-his doctrine was evolved to protect children who may, unwittingly, become collateral damage in their parents’ legal disputes. It has gained significance over the past several years, owing to the frequency and ease of migration. To consider the interests of the child, the Court must take into account all attending circumstances and the totality of the situation. The Court must consider the welfare and happiness of the child as the paramount consideration and go into all relevant aspects of welfare including stability and security, loving and understanding care and guidance, and full development of the child's character, personality, and talents - The Court has to give due weightage to the child's ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development, favourable surroundings, and future prospects. Further, over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values also have to be taken note of, as they constitute equal if not more important factors than the others. (Para 32)
Summary: This case involves a custody dispute over Aadith, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and Mild Intellectual Disability. The appellant, Sharmila (Aadith’s mother), and V. Sanjay (Aadith’s father), both U.S. citizens, have been embroiled in a legal battle over Aadith’s custody following their divorce in 2007. The dispute escalated when Sanjay took Aadith to India in December 2023, prompting Sharmila to seek his return to the U.S., where she had been granted full guardianship by an Idaho court- Sanjay took Aadith to Chennai in December 2023 without Sharmila’s consent, violating Idaho court orders. Sharmila filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Madras High Court, which ruled in August 2024 that Aadith was not illegally detained, based on his apparent willingness to stay with Sanjay- Sharmila appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court ordered a comprehensive medical assessment of Aadith by NIMHANS, Bengaluru, to evaluate his decision-making capacity - Allowing appeal, SC held : (1) Aadith is incapable of independent decision-making.(2) He should reside in the U.S. with Sharmila and Arjun. (3) Sharmila has sole custody, effective immediately. (4)Return to the U.S. within 15 days, facilitated by the U.S. Consulate-General, Chennai. (5) Both parents must maintain contact and not restrict access to the other. (6) Contempt proceedings against Sanjay dropped due to compliance with interim orders.
Brief Description
This appeal concerns the custody of Aadith Ramadorai, a US citizen with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, disputed between his divorced parents, also US citizens. The mother (Appellant) sought custody based on a US court order granting her guardianship, while the father (Respondent No. 4) argued Aadith's desire to stay with him in India. The Supreme Court granted custody to the mother, prioritizing Aadith's best interests and welfare.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court prioritized Aadith's best interests and welfare, overriding a lower court's decision based solely on Aadith's expressed wishes.
- Expert medical assessments established that Aadith, likened to an 8-10-year-old cognitively, lacked capacity for complex decision-making like choosing long-term residence.
- The Court considered Aadith's established life, education, special needs resources, and close relationship with his brother in the US.
- The principle of comity with foreign courts yielded to the paramount consideration of Aadith's welfare in determining custody.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of expert opinions on disability in legal proceedings, particularly when assessing a person's decision-making capacity.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, which allowed Adidth to stay in India against his mother and in favour of his father's wishes. Aadith was placed under the Appellant's (mother's) sole custody. The Appellant was ordered to return with both sons to the US within 15 days to continue their education. The Respondent No. 4(Father) was restrained from causing hindrances. The US Consulate was directed to return Adidth's passport and facilitate his return. Both parents were ordered to facilitate contact and access between the sons and each other. Contempt proceedings against the Respondent No. 4 (Father) were dropped due to subsequent compliance with court orders.