Synopsis

The petitioner (father) filed a habeas corpus petition seeking repatriation of his infant daughter (then 3 years 3 months) from India to the United States. He alleged that the mother had abducted the child from Utah, USA in violation of a protective order passed by a US court. The mother contended that she left the matrimonial home with the child due to safety concerns, that the child was being breastfed, and that she had filed proceedings under the POCSO Act alleging sexual abuse of the child by the father. The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) dismissed the petition, holding that (i) the custody of a biological mother is lawful; (ii) the welfare of a breastfeeding girl child is paramount and ordinarily with the mother; (iii) the father had suppressed material facts including the existence of a marriage registered in Goa and his own message giving consent to travel; (iv) the US court order was ex parte and does not bind Indian courts; (v) the child had already settled in India with mother and grandparents; and (vi) grave allegations of abuse and controlling behaviour (evidenced by an email) required detailed inquiry, not summary repatriation.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Goa Bench

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 7th May, 2026

Citation: Criminal Writ Petition No. 141 of 2026 (2026:BHC-GOA:1021-DB)

Core Law: Constitution of India – Article 226 (habeas corpus); Child custody – welfare of child paramount; International child abduction – non‑convention countries; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 (applicable in Goa)

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay at goa

Criminal writ petition no. 141 of 2026

Mr. aditya bakaya (petitioner) vs. State of goa through station house officer (sho) and 2 ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice suman shyam and hon’ble mr. justice amit s. jamsandekar

Reserved on: 25th february, 2026; pronounced on: 7th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ of habeas corpus), article 5 (citizenship)

Code of civil procedure, 1908 – section 13 (conclusiveness of foreign judgments)

Hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 – section 6 (natural guardians)

Guardians and wards act, 1890 – section 7 (power to appoint guardian), section 17 (welfare of minor paramount)

Portuguese civil code, 1867 and portuguese civil procedure code, 1939 – applicable to marriages solemnised in Goa (article 1102 requires ratification of divorce decrees by High Court)

Protection of children from sexual offences (pocso) act, 2012 – allegations of child sexual abuse

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued to repatriate a minor child (US citizen, but born to Indian‑origin parents) from India to the United States, when the mother removed the child from the US allegedly in violation of a foreign court’s protective order, but the mother claims that she left due to domestic abuse and safety concerns, and the child is of tender years (3 years) and being breastfed.

Key legal principles applied:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.