The Delhi High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her four-year-old daughter, who was living with her father in Singapore.
The Delhi High Court noted that there were also allegations that the mother had transferred her funds to India and travelled to Canada and the United States. (AI-generated image)
The Delhi High Court recently declined a mother’s plea to have her four-year-old autistic daughter returned from Singapore, noting that the child was born and was undergoing treatment in Singapore and that the mother had concealed proceedings and orders passed by Singaporean courts.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja noted that the child, who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), was undergoing treatment in Singapore with the mother’s consent, while dismissing her habeas corpus petition seeking custody of the minor daughter.
“Though the above order (Singapore court) may not be binding on this court, it would have a persuasive effect keeping in mind the comity of courts. Most importantly, and as noted hereinabove, the petitioner intentionally concealed this order from this court while filing the present writ petition,” the June 10 order read.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja noted that the child was born in Singapore and, except for an 11-month stay in India during 2024, had spent most of her life there.The high court was hearing the plea filed by a mother seeking directions to her husband to produce her minor daughter and to restore her custody to the woman.
‘Child spent most of her life in Singapore’
- The High Court noted that there were also allegations that the mother had transferred her funds to India and travelled to Canada and the United States during the relevant period.
- It observed that the welfare of the child cannot be assessed through a rigid approach and must be determined after considering the entirety of the circumstances.
- The bench held that questions relating to custody and visitation rights require a detailed examination of facts and are best adjudicated by the competent family court.
- The court further noted that the child was born in Singapore and, except for an 11-month stay in India during 2024, had spent most of her life there.
- The bench also found that the mother had failed to disclose ongoing proceedings and orders passed by courts in Singapore before filing the present petition.
- According to the court, such concealment of material facts, by itself, was sufficient to warrant dismissal of the petition.
He is habitual alcoholic
It was the case of the petitioner that she met the man in Singapore in 2016. Later that year, they got married as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and registered the marriage in 2017.
After their marriage, the estranged couple set up their matrimonial home in Singapore. It was added that they had a daughter in 2021 in Singapore, but she is an Indian citizen.
It was the case of the woman that ever since the birth of the daughter, her husband and his family have continuously subjected her and her child to cruelty, neglect and emotional harassment, which adversely affected the welfare of the child. She added that her husband is a habitual alcoholic and the petitioner is fearful for the well-being of her minor daughter.
It was further asserted that during a visit to Mumbai in February 2024, her in-laws, especially his husband’s mother, emotionally as well as physically harassed her and denied basic substances, such as milk, to the minor child, forcing her brother to arrange for the same.
Later, in 2024, the minor child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The petitioner, therefore, took the child for daily therapies bearing significant expenses, while her husband allegedly provided minimal financial support.
She further alleged that the husband forced her to resign from a well-paying job and routinely subjected both her and the child to verbal abuse.
However, the husband informed the court that he had already instituted divorce proceedings before a Singapore court in 2025, much before the present petition was filed in India. According to him, both parties had actively participated in those proceedings through multiple pleadings, affidavits and contested applications.
The husband further contended that the mother failed to disclose these proceedings before the Delhi High Court. He pointed out that a Singapore court had rejected her challenge to its jurisdiction and had also declined her request to relocate the child from Singapore to India.
Arguments
Appearing for the wife, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra argued that the Singaporean courts have no jurisdiction over the present matter as the child is not an ordinary resident of Singapore.
She submitted that the minor daughter was diagnosed with ASD and she must have a nurturing environment that caters to her unique needs.
She added that the mother is the primary caregiver to the minor daughter since her birth and the husband has always been negligent towards her treatment.
On the other hand, standing counsel Sanjay Lao submitted that a writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody matters is maintainable only when the custody is unlawful or without any authority.
He argued that the custody of the minor daughter with her father cannot be deemed as being illegal.
It was further stated that the wife has concealed various material facts and judicial orders pronounced by the courts of Singapore to erroneously persuade this high court to entertain the present petition.
