In X v. State of Telangana & Ors., Telangana High Court observed that a father cannot be deprived of his child’s custody merely because of a judicial inclination towards the mother, particularly when there is no material showing him to be an unsuitable or undeserving parent, and directed the return of the 4-year-old child to USA, where the custody dispute was already pending before a competent court.

Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father seeking custody of his daughter, who had been brought from USA to Hyderabad by the mother.

The petitioner (father) and respondent (mother) were married in India on 30.08.2018, while their daughter was born in USA on 21.09.2022. On 6 February 2025, father initiated legal-separation proceedings before Circuit Court of Oregon for Washington County.

On 20 February 2025, US Court passed a status-quo and restraining order prohibiting both parents from changing child’s usual place of residence, hiding the child from other parent, interfering with other parent’s parenting time, or leaving the State with the child without written permission.

The mother subsequently challenged US proceedings seeking to have the dispute moved to India. Her application was rejected, both parties agreed before US Court to a Temporary Parenting Plan. The plan provided parenting time for the father on alternate weekends and video-call access to the parent who did not have physical parenting time.

However, on 13 April 2025, mother left USA for India with the child. On 18 April 2025, Oregon Court granted sole temporary custody of the child to the father and directed her return to USA.

The mother thereafter initiated proceedings before Family Court at Hyderabad seeking dissolution of marriage and permanent custody of the child. The father approached Telangana High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus and contended that child had been removed from USA in violation of the orders of Oregon Court.

Court noted that Oregon Court had already considered the dispute and passed several substantive orders after providing the mother an opportunity to participate.

High Court further observed that mother’s subsequent divorce and custody proceedings in Telangana cannot invalidate the earlier orders of Oregon Court. Court also noted that mother had participated in US proceedings, agreed to Parenting Plan and had not challenged the jurisdiction of Oregon Court.

While determining the child’s best interests, Court noted that girl was a US citizen, had spent the majority of her life in Oregon and Oregon Court was competent to decide her custody.

Therefore, High Court directed the mother to return to USA with the child and comply with the orders of Oregon Court. The father was directed to bear the travel expenses of the mother and child, provide her with comfortable accommodation in USA and bear her travel, food and other expenses while she remained there.

He was also directed not to initiate penal proceedings against the mother in USA concerning the violation of the court orders. If the mother chose not to return to USA, she was directed to hand over the child to the father or his close family member for the child’s return, while retaining daily and weekend video-call access.