Foreign court orders not binding on Indian courts, says AP high court

Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh high court, in a recent judgement, declined to enforce custody and repatriation orders passed by courts in the United Kingdom, holding that foreign court directives are not binding on the Indian courts and cannot override the paramount consideration of a child's welfare in habeas corpus proceedings.A division bench of Justices Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Tuhin Kumar Gedela dismissed a writ petition filed by a man seeking custody of his six-year-old daughter, who is a British citizen by birth.The father moved high court, alleging that his daughter was in the unlawful custody of her mother and maternal grandparents in Andhra Pradesh and sought directions to produce the child before the court. He further alleged that the custody of his daughter with her mother was in violation of multiple orders passed by the family court at Kingston-upon-Hull and the high court of England.The AP high court observed that custody with the biological mother cannot be termed illegal, especially when the father had himself handed over the child to grandparents, which he himself admitted on record. Rejecting the plea, the high court said that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be converted into an executing mechanism for enforcing foreign court orders.Emphasising the doctrine of ‘parens patriae', the high court said welfare considerations assume greater significance in the case of a minor girl child. The bench observed that issues relating to emotional security, biological needs and caregiving cannot be ignored as the father himself admitted that he was living alone in the UK and required hired help for caregiving to the child.While granting custody to the mother, the bench allowed the father daily video interaction with the child for 30 minutes and permitted the child to travel to the UK once every year until she attains majority. The high court clarified that the custody order was not permanent and would be subject to future proceedings under applicable law.The court also left it open for the father to pursue his remedies before competent courts in the UK or India, making it clear that the present ruling was confined to the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction.