Indian Courts Cannot Be a Safe Haven for Parental Abduction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Repatriation of Minor to Canada

“Retention of Child in Defiance of Foreign Court Orders and Expired Visa Amounts to Illegal Custody — Welfare of Child Must Prevail” - In a landmark ruling pronounced on April 22, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the immediate repatriation of a Canadian minor to his biological mother in Canada, holding that the father’s continued retention of the child in India was illegal, unjustified, and contrary to the welfare of the child.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, while granting the writ of habeas corpus, observed: “The jurisdiction of Indian Courts cannot be attracted by deliberate creation of artificial facts or flouting foreign judicial orders — comity of Courts and best interest of the child demand repatriation.”
The Court strongly denounced the conduct of the father (respondent No.8), who had retained the child in India in breach of Canadian Court orders, with expired visa status, and had even suppressed critical facts before Indian immigration authorities.

The Story: A Mother's Fight Against Unlawful Retention of Her Son
The petitioner, Camila Carolina, a Brazilian national holding Canadian residency, was granted sole custody of her minor son by the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario on November 13, 2024.
The father, also a Canadian citizen, had been allowed to visit India with the child for 2–3 weeks in mid-2024 under strict conditions. However, he refused to return, violated the Canadian Court's directions, and wrongfully kept the child in India without informing the petitioner.
Justice Kaul noted: “Despite binding and categorical directions of the Canadian Court, respondent No.8 did not return the minor or facilitate communication — instead, he misused Indian immigration laws to prolong his unauthorized stay.”
The Court found that the child’s Indian visa had expired, and the father had concealed facts while applying for visa extensions — clear indicators of bad faith.

“Comity of Nations Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Personal Convenience”
Upholding the importance of respect for foreign custody orders, Justice Kaul relied on precedents such as V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India and Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal, observing:
“When a child is wrongfully retained in India contrary to orders of a foreign court, Indian courts must ordinarily direct repatriation unless overwhelming circumstances to the contrary exist.”
The Court pointed out: “Respondent No.8’s conduct reveals forum shopping and manipulation — Indian Courts must not allow themselves to become instruments for subverting lawful custody decrees of competent foreign jurisdictions.”
Rejecting the father's arguments that the custody issue should be decided afresh in India, the Court held that retention of the minor in defiance of Canadian Court orders amounts to illegal detention, justifying issuance of a habeas corpus writ.

Welfare of the Child Paramount: Observations on Mother–Child Bond
During court proceedings, the minor interacted with his mother under the Court’s observation. The High Court recorded:
“The minor appeared naturally affectionate and at ease with the petitioner — there was no indication of alienation or distress that would suggest that returning him to his mother would harm his welfare.”
Justice Kaul stressed that even otherwise: “A mother's care, particularly for a tender-aged child, is unmatched — welfare considerations heavily favor repatriation to the petitioner, his lawful custodian.”
Thus, the Court reaffirmed that the child's best interests lay in returning him to Canada under his mother’s custody, where his legal and emotional rights could be better protected.
Allowing the petition, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul ordered: “The continued custody of the minor by respondent No.8 is unsustainable in law — the minor must be repatriated to Canada in the custody of the petitioner forthwith.”
In a strong closing note, the Court warned: “Indian Courts must not become safe havens for litigants who defy the authority of foreign Courts — constitutional writ jurisdiction is a shield for justice, not a sword for manipulation.”
This judgment marks an important reaffirmation of the principle that writ courts in India will uphold international legal comity, child welfare, and the sanctity of lawful judicial orders.

Date of Decision: April 22, 2025