In a landmark ruling prioritizing child welfare, the Supreme Court of India on September 16, 2025, dismissed the criminal appeal in Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 1123), upholding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order granting interim custody of minor son ‘Master K’ to his father, Sandeep Kumar. The bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, emphasized the paramountcy of the child’s best interests in habeas corpus proceedings involving parental disputes.
The case arose from a bitter marital conflict between Sandeep Kumar (father) and Latika Arora (mother), married on November 29, 2010. The couple’s relationship deteriorated, leading to divorce proceedings in both India and the UK. On May 8, 2021, the mother relocated to the United Kingdom with both children—daughter ‘Miss N’ (now residing with her) and son ‘Master K’—without the father’s consent or knowledge. The father, clueless about their whereabouts, sought assistance from child helplines and police, eventually filing a habeas corpus petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging illegal custody by the maternal grandparents (appellants).
The High Court, in its November 2021 order, directed interim custody of Master K to the father, citing his role as a natural guardian and the child’s welfare. The appellants challenged this in SLP (Crl) No. 9497/2021, which the Supreme Court converted into a criminal appeal. Concurrently, contempt petitions (C No. 325/2022 and Nos. 124-125/2024) were filed for alleged violations of court orders, and another SLP (Crl) No. 17530/2024 was tagged.
In its 29-page judgment, the apex court critiqued the mother’s conduct for failing to inform the father about leaving Master K with grandparents in India and not disclosing this in UK proceedings. It noted the UK High Court’s July 2021 location order and passport seizure for Miss N, but focused on Master K’s situation. Affirming the father’s academic and financial stability (a qualified engineer with international experience and property in Noida), the court deemed Noida more suitable for the child’s education and upbringing than Sonipat.
Dismissing the appeal, the SC mandated handover of Master K’s custody to the father by September 30, 2025, with the following interim directions:
• Mother and sibling to have audio/video access every Saturday from 5-7 PM (IST); additional Sunday visitation (1-5 PM) during mother’s India visits.
• Maternal grandparents’ Sunday visitation (1-5 PM).
• Father barred from taking Master K abroad without High Court permission.
• Child’s citizenship subject to Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 proceedings, to be filed within one month.
• Juvenile Justice Board to monitor Master K’s well-being, with reports to SC if needed.
The court disposed of the contempt petitions and related SLP, urging parties to initiate guardianship proceedings uninfluenced by its observations. It deprecated the parents’ ego-driven litigation, stressing stability and compassionate care for child development, citing precedents like Nil Ratan Kundu vs. Abhijit Kundu and Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari.
This verdict highlights judicial caution in international child removal cases, reinforcing parens patriae doctrine. It may influence similar disputes under the Hague Convention, though India is not a signatory. Family law experts hail it for balancing parental rights with child-centric outcomes.
Case Details: Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 1123)
Click HERE for full judgment.
Lawcutor 