"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Child Welfare Takes Precedence in International Custody Battle: Karnataka High Court Upholds Father's Custody

05 September 2024 5:29 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on September 29, 2023, the Karnataka High Court underscored the paramount importance of child welfare in an international custody dispute. The case involved a custody battle over Master Advik, a minor child, whose parents originally hailing from India found themselves living in different countries due to career prospects.

The Bench comprising The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda carefully considered the child's happiness and well-being as the primary concern throughout the proceedings. The extensive interactions with the child revealed his strong preference to stay with his father, who resides in Bangkok, Thailand.

The mother's career priorities, which led her to Germany, were duly noted by the Court. The German Family Court's ex-parte order granting custody to the mother was acknowledged, but the Karnataka High Court emphasized that the child's welfare must take precedence over jurisdictional issues.

In its observation, the Court stated, "Child Custody - Welfare of the Child - Dispute between parents over the custody of minor child, Master Advik - Parents originally from India, living in various countries due to career prospects - Child's happiness and well-being considered paramount." This observation highlights the central theme of the judgment.

Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court granted custody of Master Advik to his father in Bangkok, granting the mother visitation rights and phone/video call access to the child. The father was directed to execute a bond and provide an affidavit to ensure his presence in India if required.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that in child custody cases, the welfare of the child is of utmost importance, transcending international borders and legal complexities. The child's residence and custody remain subject to jurisdictional Family Court orders, ensuring ongoing protection of his best interests.

The legal representatives in the case included Smt. S. Susheel, Senior Advocate, and Shri. H. Somanatha, Advocate, for the petitioner, as well as Shri. Anoop Kumar, HCGP for R1 to R5, and Shri. S. Karthik Kiran, Advocate, for Shri. Kapil Dixit, Advocate, representing R6 and R7.

Date of Decision: 29 September, 2023

SMT. ARCHANA PRADHAN  vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Similar News