The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court’s decision granting custody of a four-year-old girl to her Indian father, citing fears that the child’s Russian mother might leave India, undermining ongoing legal proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court’s decision granting interim custody of a four-year-old girl to her Indian father, citing reasonable apprehension that the child’s Russian mother might leave India with her, rendering ongoing legal proceedings ineffective.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the mother’s appeal challenging the family court’s ruling. The Court emphasized that allowing the mother unrestricted custody could risk “snatching away the jurisdiction of Indian courts,” making it impossible to enforce or implement judicial decisions.
Court’s Observation
In its detailed judgment, the Bench underscored that for any legal process to be meaningful, courts must retain their jurisdiction and the ability to enforce decisions.
“If this basic foundational feature were to be absent, the entire exercise would be rendered futile,”
the Court observed.
The High Court noted that both the mother and the daughter are Russian passport holders, and the mother had previously approached the Russian Embassy to seek exit permits. This, the judges said, strengthened concerns that she might attempt to leave India with the child despite the ongoing custody case.
The Bench also referenced a similar case pending before the Supreme Court of India, where a Russian woman, assisted by her government, allegedly left India with her child despite shared custody being granted to the Indian father. In that case, the Court noted, it had “been frustrated” due to diplomatic complications and lack of enforcement.
“Despite the Indian Government’s repeated and concerted efforts, the matter remains wrapped in diplomatic red tape,”
the Bench noted.
Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, children below five years of age are ordinarily placed in their mother’s custody. However, the Court held that the present case was exceptional, stating that the best interests of the child justified granting custody to the father.
Background of the Dispute
The couple, who married in 2013, initially lived in Russia, where their daughter was born. They later relocated to India, residing in Noida and Dehradun. Following allegations of domestic abuse, the relationship deteriorated, leading to a bitter custody and divorce battle.
According to court records, the mother took refuge at several locations, including the Russian Embassy in Delhi, and currently lives in Goa, working as a dance and yoga instructor with an income of approximately ₹25,000 per month. The father, meanwhile, resides in Dehradun, where he is engaged in developing his ancestral property for commercial purposes, providing him a stable home and financial base.
High Court Upholds Family Court’s Decision
After weighing all the evidence, the Delhi High Court concluded that the family court’s reasoning was sound. It held that allowing the father interim custody of the minor was in the child’s best interest, considering the risk of the mother absconding and the father’s stable living conditions.
Appearance:
The mother: Senior Advocate M Dutta and Advocates Aditya Guha and Anand Kumar Soni
The father: Advocates Usha Mann, Deepak Gupta and Vijayat M Bhalla
Case Title:
IRINA TANKHA versus ANIRUDH N. TANKHA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 55/2025
READ JUDGMENT
