The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs. State of Karnataka (Civil Appeal No 3284 of 2020) reiterated that the most important consideration while the issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of minor child custody matter, is the "Welfare of the child". the Hon'ble Court imposed certain conditions on allowing a father to take his child to the United States of America and he filed an appeal in the Apex Court. 

The first condition was to get a certificate from the rank of the District Health Officer of Bengaluru certifying that "this country", that is India former is free of the Covid-19 pandemic and also it is safe for the minor child to travel abroad. 

The second condition required him to obtain a certificate from the "concerned medical authority" in the US  about conditions prevailing in the US, especially in the area where the applicant is living and about its healthy/suitable for shifting the minor kid to New Jersey. Listening to the appeal, the bench of Hon'ble justice DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, and KM Joseph asserted: 

In several recent decisions of this Court bearing on the issue, it has been held that when confronted with a habeas corpus petition, the existence of an order of the foreign court is one circumstance which is borne in mind by the Court. The Court will have regard to whether the lawful custody of one of the spouses has been disturbed by the other. The most significant consideration is the welfare of the child. 

The Hon'ble bench took note of the facts pertaining to the case observed that the Welfare of the child would be best served accompanying his father to the US because the child was born there and is a citizen of the US by birth, the bench observed: 

Both the appellant and the respondent are qualified professionals who have been employed in the US and the appellant continues to be employed there. Faced with the departure of his spouse and child, the appellant moved the court of jurisdiction in New Jersey for orders of temporary custody. He has followed their tracks to India and invoked judicial remedies here. The child has remained here for a short period and it would not be contrary to his interest to allow the appellant to take him back. Hence, independent of the desire communicated by the respondent to the amicus curiae that she does not wish to contest the proceedings, the Court has concluded that the direction of the High Court to allow the child to return to the US is in the interest of his welfare. We have enquired into this aspect though the Special Leave Petition by the petitioner is only as regards the conditions for return imposed by the High Court. This Court has an overarching duty to ensure and preserve the welfare of a minor child within its jurisdiction. 


The bench asserted while dismissing the conditions imposed by the Karnataka High Court that, the conditions that were imposed by the High Court were the consequence of a well-meaning exercise, but that does not render them proper or correct. The Court disposed of this appeal and issued some directions and also recorded an undertaking by the father that the Rules in effect for facilitating travel between India and the US on the date of travel would be complied by him. 

This news has been reported by Urvi Yadav