In a criminal writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking issuance of Habeas Corpus to direct respondent 2 (husband) to produce the petitioner’s (wife) minor daughter and to restore the daughter’s custody with the wife, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja refused to exercise discretion under Article 226, noting that the disputed questions were to be determined before a competent family court.
The couple met in Singapore in 2016 and got married in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. They later set up their matrimonial home in Singapore where their daughter was born on 28.09.2021 in Singapore, but was an Indian citizen. In 2024, the child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is why the wife took the child for daily therapies in Greater Noida and bore significant expenses.
The wife asserted that the husband and his family subjected her and the child to cruelty and emotional harassment. She was persuaded to go back to Singapore, where she claimed the husband’s abusive behaviour escalated. Fearing her safety, the wife left Singapore on 25.12.2024 without the child, as her travel documents were forcefully withheld. The wife returned to Singapore to file a police complaint against the husband and also obtained a restraint order against the husband, but he actively alienated the child from the wife due to which the child suffered autistic meltdowns.
The husband filed for divorce before the Family Justice Courts, Singapore, on 27.01.2025, denying all allegations, claiming the petitioner abandoned the child, and emptied matrimonial funds. On 25.11.2025, the Singapore Family Court dismissed the petitioner’s applications seeking a stay of foreign proceedings and relocation of the child to India, noting the child’s established schooling, medical treatment, and stability in Singapore.
The Court noted that the wife concealed multiple parallel proceedings and specific orders of the Singapore Court, and held that concealment alone was a sufficient ground to dismiss a petition and refuse the exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After perusing the Singapore Court’s order, the Court said that even though the same may not be binding on the Court, it would have a persuasive effect considering the comity of courts.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions, it was noted that a Court is not bound by the mere legal rights of the parents/guardian, but by the welfare of the minor. The Court stated that India was not a signatory to the Hague Convention and that the child’s medical treatment for ASD and ADHD was actively connected to Singapore. It was said that the questions regarding the child’s ordinary residence, maternal care fitness, and financial transactions needed to be considered in detail.
The Court stated that the proper and appropriate remedy for the wife to seek custody and visitation with the child would lie before the Family Court concerned and could not be determined in a summary jurisdiction on affidavits in the present petition. It was also noted that the husband had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of not only this Court but also of the Family Court by contending that the child was last residing in Ghaziabad. The Court stated that this disputed question of fact also had to be determined by the competent court. The Court declined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, while granting liberty to the wife to agitate her claims of custody and visitation before the competent Family Court. Thus, the petition was dismissed while reserving liberty in the wife’s favour.
