The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling refusing to give custody of a six-year-old girl child to her British father, in spite of UK courts having granted him custody, underscores a settled legal principle in India: in custody battles, the welfare of the child reigns supreme, even overriding the decrees of foreign courts.The judgment, delivered earlier this month, also criticised the UK court’s language for reflecting a “colonial mindset” that cannot be superimposed on the Indian judiciary.We explain what the case was about, and the broader legal framework governing the enforcement of foreign judgments in India.The case involved a British citizen who filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking the custody of his six-year-old daughter from his estranged wife and her parents.The couple had married in Tirupati in 2017 and subsequently lived in the UK, where the child was born. Following marital discord, the mother and child relocated to India.The events leading to the litigation are disputed by both parents. According to the father, he brought his daughter to India in August 2025 for a two-week holiday, during which he handed the child over to her maternal grandparents in Andhra Pradesh for a mutually agreed two-night stay. However, he alleged that when he went to pick her up, the grandparents had absconded with the child. After failing to get police assistance, he filed the petition.Also read | Can’t ignore mother’s plea: Allahabad High Court gives woman another chance to secure access to 20-month-old sonThe mother alleged that the father had forcibly taken the child to the UK in 2024 without her consent. When she learned through her parents that he was bringing the child to India for a brief stay, the grandparents took the child in. The mother arrived in India in late August and took custody of her daughter. She also filed a police complaint against the father and his parents for harassment and demanding dowry.Story continues below this adWith the mother remaining in India, the father obtained orders from a family court and the High Court of England directing the mother to return the child to England, failing which she would face imprisonment and asset seizure. Relying on the orders, the father argued before the Andhra Pradesh High Court that it should respect the “comity of courts” — the principle that courts of one jurisdiction respect the judicial decisions of another — and enforce the UK directives.AP High Court rulingA Division Bench of Justices C M Roy and T K Gedela dismissed the father’s petition, holding that since the father himself had voluntarily left the child with her grandparents, her custody with them could not be termed “illegal” or “unlawful”.The court invoked the doctrine of parens patriae: a legal principle whereby the court acts as the guardian of a child, prioritising their welfare above all else. The bench held that the invocation of First Strike principle — the legal principle that in child custody legal battles involving courts from different countries, the order of the court that ruled first must take precedence — as argued by the petitioner “would undermine and whittle down the wholesome principle of the duty of the Court… to consider the best interests and welfare of the child”.The court also considered the specific biological and emotional needs of the six-year-old girl. “At this juncture of life, the girl child needs special care and attention of the mother,” the bench noted. “There are certain biological changes, which a girl child undergoes, which cannot be taken care of by the father,” the court said, pointing to the father’s admission that he stays alone in the UK.Story continues below this adAlso read | ‘Custody with mother not illegal’: Delhi High Court rejects Pakistani-origin British father’s plea to send kids back to UKThe court granted custody to the mother until the child attains majority, while granting the father daily video-call access and annual visitation rights.In the judgment, the High Court took exception to a specific line in the UK High Court’s order: that “the Courts of India do decline to exercise any jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility in respect of the child”.The High Court criticised this, stating: “This imprints a fostered culture of subordination and embraces speaks of colonial mindset. … [T]his colonial legacy cannot be permitted to be revived or superimposed upon the independence of the Indian [judiciary].”Enforcing foreign judgments in IndiaThe High Court’s refusal to execute the UK custody order highlights the nuanced legal framework governing the implementation of foreign judgments in India. India does not enforce foreign civil judgments through a general international treaty. Instead, enforcement is governed by domestic law, primarily the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).Story continues below this adUnder Section 44A of the CPC, direct execution of a foreign judgment is only possible if it is a “money decree” — a court order that directs one party to pay a specific, fixed sum of money to another — from a notified “reciprocating territory”.A reciprocating territory is a country notified by the Indian government — such as the UK, Singapore, or the United Arab Emirates — with which India has a mutual statutory agreement to directly enforce each other’s court decrees. If a judgment meets these criteria, it can be executed in an Indian district court as if it were passed locally.Also read | US-born child’s ‘deep roots’ in India outweigh American court orders, Delhi High Court rules in bitter custody battleHowever, even with reciprocating territories, the Supreme Court has laid down strict criteria. For instance, in the 2020 Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank case, the Supreme Court ruled that the time limit (limitation period) for executing a foreign decree in India is governed by the laws of the country where the decree was passed. This prevents parties from endlessly delaying enforcement abroad and then “shopping” for more time in Indian courts.For non-money decrees, such as child custody or divorce orders, or judgments from non-reciprocating countries, there is no provision for direct execution. A party must file a fresh civil suit in India, in which it can use the foreign judgment as evidence.Story continues below this adEven then, foreign judgments are not automatically accepted. Under Section 13 of the CPC, a foreign judgment is considered “conclusive” only if it passes a six-point test. Indian courts will refuse to recognise a foreign decree if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, if the case was not decided on its merits, if it breached natural justice, if it was obtained by fraud, or if it violates Indian law.In the Satya v. Teja Singh case in 1975, the Supreme Court refused to recognise a divorce decree granted by a US court because the husband had obtained it by deceiving the court about his domicile.