Indian courts can’t be used as refuge to evade legal orders abroad, rules HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Indian courts cannot be reduced to “instruments of convenience” for foreign nationals seeking to bypass judicial proceedings in their own countries.

The ruling came in a case where an Australian court permitted a father to bring his child to India for a limited period — from January 8 to February 2.

But the father failed to return the child to Australia after the expiry of the specified period, effectively disregarding the authority of the Australian Family Court.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said allowing such conduct — where a foreign national brought a child to India under a specific order from a foreign court and then refused to comply with the return orders — would amount to misusing the writ jurisdiction of Indian courts to evade legal obligations imposed by courts in their own country.

The High Court held that Indian courts cannot be misused as a refuge or safe haven for foreign nationals seeking to sidestep lawful directions of competent foreign courts.

The observation came as Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj allowed a habeas corpus petition seeking the return of the minor child to his mother in Australia.

The Bench held that the father could not continue to retain the child’s custody in India after the expiry of a time-bound order passed by a competent foreign court.

Justice Bhardwaj also took note of the submission on the mother’s behalf that the father had already remarried.

“In view of the totality of the circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the continued custody of the minor child with the respondent father, who is remarried and residing with his second wife, is unjustified,” the court said.

Before parting with the case, Justice Bhardwaj directed the father to hand over the minor child, along with his passport and all other travelling documents, to petitioner mother forthwith.

“Failing compliance, the respondent state is directed to restore the minor’s custody and documents without any delay. The petitioner, being biological mother having full legal rights for his custody as per the various orders passed by the family court at Australia, would be at liberty to take the minor child to Australia, their native country,” the Bench concluded.