Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali

The appellant-mother, Lahari Sakhamuri, and the respondent-father, Sobhan Kodali, both qualified medical doctors and naturalized citizens of the United States of America, were married in Hyderabad in December 2007 according to Hindu rites. They relocated to the United States and lived in Pennsylvania, where they established successful professional medical careers. Two children—a son born in 2012 and a daughter born in 2014—were born in the United States, acquiring US citizenship by birth.

In 2016, following serious marital discord, the mother initiated divorce proceedings before the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. During the pendency of the US proceedings, the mother sought permission to travel to India with the minor children for a brief vacation. The US court granted permission on the solemn undertaking that she would return with the children by March 2017. However, upon reaching India, the mother breached her undertaking, refused to return to the US, and instituted a comprehensive custody petition under Section 7, 10, and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court at Hyderabad, seeking exclusive custody and an injunction restraining the father from removing the children from India.

The US Court issued contempt warrants and granted sole legal custody to the father, directing the mother to return the children. The father then filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, seeking repatriation of the minor children to the jurisdiction of the US court. The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus petition, directing the mother to take the children back to the United States. Aggrieved, the mother appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

1. Doctrine of Comity of Courts vs. Welfare of the Child: How should Indian courts balance the international principle of comity of foreign courts and orders of foreign courts against the domestic doctrine of paramount child welfare.
2. Habitual Residence and Inter-Country Child Removal: What weight should be accorded to the fact that minor children are foreign citizens by birth and had their habitual residence, schooling, and social environment in a foreign jurisdiction prior to unilateral removal.
3. Summary Inquiry vs. Elaborate Inquiry: In what circumstances should an Indian High Court in Habeas Corpus proceedings conduct a summary inquiry to return children to the court of their habitual residence rather than embarking on an elaborate trial.
4. Equitable Safeguards for Repatriating Mothers: What comprehensive financial, housing, and legal safeguards must be secured from the non-custodial parent before directing a mother and minor children to travel abroad.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the mother, affirming the judgment of the High Court directing the repatriation of the minor children to the United States of America.

To ensure the welfare of the mother and children, the Court recorded comprehensive undertakings from the father: he was directed to deposit ₹25 Lakhs for the mother's expenses, provide an independent furnished apartment in Pennsylvania, pay all airfares, and not seek custody enforcement or penal arrest until the US court passed fresh orders after hearing both parents on equal footing.

The comparative analysis underscores that in the absence of treaty accession, the Supreme Court has judicially crafted a principled, equitable framework that honors foreign judicial processes while maintaining sovereign constitutional oversight over child welfare.

Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali is the primary authority in cross-border custody litigation:

• Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67: Reaffirmed and applied Lahari Sakhamuri to order the repatriation of a US-born child to the United States while putting extensive protective financial safeguards in place for the mother.
• Nilanjan Bhattacharya v. State of Karnataka (2020 SCC OnLine SC 928): Applied the 'habitual residence' test to direct the return of a child to the United States.
• Rohit Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (2022 SCC OnLine SC 937): Reiterated that a parent who brings a child to India in breach of foreign court orders cannot create jurisdiction by prolonged unauthorized stay.