Child Custody Dispute: Kanika Goel vs. State of Delhi – Supreme Court Judgment Analysis

The case of Mrs. Kanika Goel vs. State of Delhi revolves around a contentious child custody dispute that reached the Supreme Court of India. The case involves the parental rights of a mother and father over their minor daughter, M, who was taken from the United States to India by her mother. The legal battle began when the father, a U.S. citizen, sought the return of the child to the United States, while the mother contested the move, citing concerns for her and the child’s well-being.

The judgment, delivered by a bench led by A.M. Khanwilkar, examined whether the custody of the minor child should remain with the mother in India or if the child should be returned to the United States, where she was born and raised until her removal.

Background of the Case

Kanika Goel, an Indian-origin woman and a U.S. permanent resident, was married to Karan Goel, a U.S. citizen, in 2010. They lived together in the United States, where their daughter M was born in 2014. The child was a natural-born U.S. citizen and had spent her early years in Illinois. In December 2016, Kanika traveled to India with M under the pretext of a short visit to her parents. However, she did not return to the U.S. and instead filed for divorce and custody of the child in India.

The father, Karan Goel, approached the courts in Illinois, which granted him interim sole custody of the child and directed her return. However, Kanika refused to comply, leading Karan to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court for the child’s return to the United States.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner (Karan Goel)

• Karan argued that M was a U.S. citizen and had been unlawfully removed from her habitual residence.
• The Illinois court had already granted him interim custody, and Kanika had defied the order by keeping the child in India.
• The child’s best interest lay in returning to the U.S., where she had been raised and had her family, friends, and educational setup.
• He assured the court that all necessary financial support and accommodations would be provided to Kanika if she chose to return with the child.

Respondent (Kanika Goel)

• Kanika contended that she had faced domestic abuse and an unfriendly environment in the U.S.
• She argued that as the child’s primary caregiver, removing M from her care would be detrimental to her well-being.
• She emphasized that her daughter had adjusted to life in India and that a forced return would cause psychological harm.
• She further submitted that the Illinois court order was not binding on Indian courts and that her rights as a mother should be prioritized.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, after considering arguments from both parties, deliberated on multiple factors, including international jurisprudence on child custody and parental rights.

Observations of the Court

• The child had spent most of her early life in the United States and was familiar with its environment.
• While Kanika was the primary caregiver, the father also had rights, and the child deserved the love and care of both parents.
• The child’s long-term welfare was paramount, and the court had to balance the rights of both parents.
• The court recognized that forcing the mother to return to the U.S. might not be a viable option, given her unwillingness.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that while Kanika could not be compelled to return to the U.S., she was also not justified in unilaterally deciding to keep the child in India. The court laid out the following directives:

• Kanika must return to the U.S. with the child within two weeks.
• Karan must provide financial assistance for her stay in the U.S., including rent, education, and other living expenses for six months.
• If Kanika chose not to return, the custody of the child would be handed over to Karan, and he would take the child back to the United States.
• The Illinois court would have jurisdiction over further custody proceedings.

Conclusion

The judgment underscores the principle that in international child custody cases, the welfare of the child remains the supreme consideration. While courts acknowledge parental rights, they ultimately prioritize the long-term well-being of the child. In this case, the Supreme Court carefully weighed the rights of both parents and arrived at a balanced decision that aimed to serve the best interest of the minor child.

Petitioner Name: Karan Goel.
Respondent Name: Kanika Goel.
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 20-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Karan Goel vs Kanika Goel Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Child Custody
See all petitions in Alimony and Maintenance
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Divorce Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category