Father loses custody fight after US court order is rejected in India

He flew to India with a US court order for his daughters. The Supreme Court told him: that paper is worthless. On a Monday in August 2024, a bench of two judges looked at a father who had crossed an ocean with a Minnesota Family Court order in his suitcase, and they shut the door.

The question was simple: could a man use a habeas corpus petition — a court order that asks: where is this person, and is their detention legal — to take his two daughters from their mother, just because an American judge said he could? The Supreme Court's answer was a flat no — and in the process, it laid down a rule that will echo through every cross-border custody battle in India.

When the father landed with a US order

Rohan Rajesh Kothari and his wife had been living in the United States. The marriage fractured. The mother moved back to India with their two daughters. The father stayed in Minnesota. In July 2023, he walked into a Family Court in Minnesota and obtained a custody order in his favour.

Then he got on a plane. He landed in India, went straight to the Gujarat High Court, and filed a habeas corpus writ — arguing that his daughters were being "illegally detained" by their mother. He wanted the court to order their immediate release into his custody.

The Gujarat High Court wasn't convinced. On 5 January 2024, it dismissed his petition. So the father took the fight to the Supreme Court, filing a Special Leave Petition — a request for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal against a High Court order.

The courtroom that August morning was still. The father sat in the well of the court, the Minnesota order tucked somewhere in his file, watching as the bench — Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan — began to dismantle his case piece by piece. The air was thick with the smell of old paper and the weight of a decision that would follow him back across the ocean.

Why habeas corpus isn't a child-custody weapon

The Supreme Court bench began by questioning the very foundation of the father's case. A writ of habeas corpus, they pointed out, is meant for one thing: to free a person who is being illegally confined. It is not a tool for a parent to snatch children from the other parent in a custody dispute.

The children were girls, living with their mother. There was no allegation of abuse, no claim that the mother was harming them. The father's real grievance was not illegal detention — it was that a US court had given him custody and the mother was not complying. That, the court said, is a family law matter, not a constitutional crime.

The bench was clear: "A writ of habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy to secure temporary custody of minor children, especially girls, who are living with their mother." The words hung in the air. The father's petition had been built on the wrong legal foundation from the very first page.

Then the bench turned to the US court order itself. The father had treated it as though it were a binding decree that Indian courts must enforce. The Supreme Court disagreed — sharply.

The paper that meant nothing

The court invoked Section 13(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — a provision that says a foreign judgment is not conclusive — not binding on Indian courts — if it is "founded on a disregard of the law of India." The Minnesota Family Court order, the bench found, violated Indian law on multiple fronts. It had been obtained without the mother's proper participation. It ignored the fact that the children were living in India under Indian law. It purported to decide custody of Indian children living in India without any regard for Indian family law principles.

"A foreign judgment violative of Indian law is not conclusive between the parties," the court held. "Indian courts are not bound to follow it." This principle, the bench noted, is statutorily recognized by Section 13(f) CPC, 1908 — meaning it is not a matter of judicial discretion but a codified rule that Indian courts must obey.

The bench went further: it directed that no Indian authority — police, court, or government department — should attempt to enforce the US order in any manner. The Minnesota order was not merely weak; it was legally inert on Indian soil. The father's prized document had become, in the eyes of Indian law, a blank sheet of paper.

When the court looked at the father's hands

The bench also found that the father had not come to court with "clean hands" — a legal principle that means a person seeking justice must themselves have acted honestly. The court observed that the father had approached both US and Indian courts in a way that suggested he was shopping for a favourable forum. He had not disclosed all relevant facts to the Minnesota court. He had not been straightforward with the Gujarat High Court either.

"The petitioner lacked bona fides in approaching both US and Indian courts," the judgment noted. That finding alone was enough to dismiss the petition. The court found that the father had not approached either US or Indian courts with clean hands — a double failure that left his case in ruins. But the court went further, laying down a broader principle about when habeas corpus can — and cannot — be used in child custody cases.

The clean hands doctrine, the bench implied, applies with special force in cross-border custody disputes. A parent who tries to use one court's order to ambush the other parent in another jurisdiction — without full disclosure of all relevant facts — will find the Indian Supreme Court a cold place to land.

What the court actually ordered

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition — SLP (Crl.) No. 1722/2024 — on 5 August 2024. But it did not leave the father with nothing. The bench continued an interim arrangement that had been in place during the proceedings — meaning the father could still have some access to his daughters, under conditions set by a competent Indian family court.

The operative part of the order was precise and deliberate. The court directed that the interim arrangement made by the Supreme Court "shall continue as interim measure till the custody issue is resolved by the court of competent jurisdiction in India." Then came the critical instruction: "No attempt shall be made to affect the status of the children or mother in purported compliance with the US court order." The message was unambiguous — the Minnesota order was dead letter on Indian soil.

The court directed that the custody issue be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction in India — meaning the father would have to file a proper custody petition in an Indian family court, where both parents would be heard on equal footing, and where the best interests of the children would be the guiding principle. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of with the main petition.

The father gathered his papers. The file felt thin in his hands. The courtroom had emptied, but the weight of the judgment stayed with him as he walked out into the August heat.

Why this matters for every cross-border family

For practitioners, the judgment settles a recurring question: can a parent armed with a foreign custody order bypass Indian family courts by filing a habeas corpus petition? The answer is no. Habeas corpus is not a shortcut for custody battles. And a foreign order that violates Indian law is not worth the paper it's printed on.

The case also reinforces a deeper principle: Indian courts will not allow themselves to be used as enforcement arms of foreign family courts, especially when the foreign proceeding did not respect Indian law or the rights of the parent living in India. The ratio decidendi — the legal principle that governs future cases — is twofold: first, habeas corpus is not a remedy for child custody where minor girls are living with their mother; second, a foreign judgment that violates Indian law is not binding on Indian courts under Section 13(f) CPC.

The Supreme Court's message to parents in cross-border marriages is clear: if you want custody, file a proper case in an Indian family court. Do not fly in with a foreign order and expect Indian courts to salute it. The best interests of the child — not the convenience of the parent with the thicker wallet or the faster lawyer — will decide the outcome.

THE PLAY: If you hold a foreign custody order and want to enforce it in India, do not file a habeas corpus petition — file a proper custody application in an Indian family court, and be prepared to argue why the foreign order should be recognised under Section 13 CPC.

The father flew back across the ocean with a US court order that had become, in the eyes of Indian law, a blank sheet of paper. The girls stayed with their mother.