https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314346 In a child custody habeas corpus dispute involving a foreign return order, the child's welfare remained the paramount consideration and the foreign court's direction was only one relevant factor, not controlling. Custody with the mother in India was not unlawful merely because of the ex parte foreign order, and the writ remedy could not be used as a substitute for enforcement of that order. On the facts, the child's roots in India, family support and medical needs justified retention with the mother, while the father's visitation and participation in foreign proceedings were protected. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2024 15:28:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314346 In a child custody habeas corpus dispute involving a foreign return order, the child's welfare remained the paramount consideration and the foreign court's direction was only one relevant factor, not controlling. Custody with the mother in India was not unlawful merely because of the ex parte foreign order, and the writ remedy could not be used as a substitute for enforcement of that order. On the facts, the child's roots in India, family support and medical needs justified retention with the mother, while the father's visitation and participation in foreign proceedings were protected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314346