2025 INSC 299 1 | P a g e

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION / INHERENT JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. ____ / 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17281 / 2024)

Sharmila Velamur ….Appellant(s)

Versus

V. Sanjay and Ors. ….Respondent(s)

WITH

Contempt Petition (C) No. 9 / 2025

(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17281 / 2024)

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The controversy in this case revolves around the custody of Aadith

Ramadorai, a twenty-two-year-old citizen of the United States of

America (US) who has been diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy.

This tussle for custody has been elicited by Aadith Ramadorai’s

2 | P a g e

parents—the Appellant and Respondent No. 4—both of whom are

also US citizens.

A. FACTS

3. It is necessary to understand the factual milieu surrounding the

dispute before delving into the consequential legal issues.

3.1 To clarify the relationship between the parties, as previously

elucidated, the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 are Aadith

Ramadorai’s mother and father, respectively. Respondent No. 1 is

the Appellant’s brother, whereas Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are

Respondent No. 4’s parents.

3.2 The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 got married in Chennai, India

on 09.07.2001, as per Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently,

they began residing together in Idaho, US and acquired US

citizenship in due course of time. They had two sons—Aadith

Ramadorai (Aadith), who was born on 06.06.2003, and Arjun

Ramadorai (Arjun), who was born on 13.03.2005 —from the

wedlock. Both the children are US citizens by virtue of their birth

and their parents’ citizenship. These children were born with

intellectual and developmental disabilities. Aadith has Ataxic

Cerebral Palsy, while Arjun has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

3 | P a g e

3.3 During their marriage, certain irreconcilable differences arose

between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4, prompting them to

dissolve their marriage by mutual consent through an order dated

12.09.2007, passed by the District Court of the Fourth Judicial

District, State of Idaho, US (Idaho Court). While dissolving the

marriage, the Idaho Court awarded joint legal and physical custody

of the sons, as they were minors at the time. The Idaho Court

established the terms of joint custody as follows: (i) Respondent No.

4 would have physical custody of the sons every week from 8:00 am

on Friday to 8:00 am on Monday; and (ii) the Appellant would have

physical custody of the sons every week from 8:00 am on Monday

to 8:00 am on Friday. The Idaho Court divided all holidays equally

amongst the parents and further directed them to not disparage

each other in the midst of their sons, teachers, care providers, and

medical providers. Additionally, neither party was directed to pay

child support to the other. Lastly, in furtherance of these

directions, the Idaho Court vide Clause 13 of the Supplemental

Custody Order expounded that, “Neither parent shall move the

children’s residence to a place which will make the ordered

custody and visitation schedule impractical or significantly

more difficult or expensive without prior written consent of

the other parent or an order of the court.”

4 | P a g e

3.4 Thereafter, in June 2022, following a visit in terms of the Idaho

Court’s custody arrangement, Respondent No. 4 brought Arjun

back to the Appellant’s home, whereas Aadith continued to reside

with Respondent No. 4. It is pertinent to note that by this time,

Aadith had already attained majority. This led the Appellant to file

a Guardianship Application before the Idaho Court on 30.06.2022,

seeking full and permanent legal guardianship over Aadith. In

response thereto, Respondent No. 4 filed a Counter-Petition before

the Idaho Court on 17.01.2023 , contending that Aadith was

sufficiently capable and did not require a permanent guardian.

3.5 In due course, during a preliminary hearing on 04.01.2023 before

the Idaho Court, the parties' attorneys laid down mutual terms for

them to adhere to until the conclusion of the proceedings. These

terms included: (i) meeting with the Health and Welfare Committee

within 45 days; (ii) sharing Aadith’s address, phone number, and

email address with the Appellant; (iii) allowing regular in-person

contact between the Appellant and Aadith, subject to his comfort

level; and (iv) providing advance notice and written itineraries for

any foreign travel arrangements involving Aadith, which would be

discussed by the parents jointly.

5 | P a g e

3.6 As per the terms mentioned above, the Appellant and Aadith were

scheduled to be interviewed on 17.05.2023 by the Evaluation

Committee of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (West

Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) (Evaluation

Committee). The Evaluation Committee’s findings revealed that

Respondent No. 4 and Aadith refused to attend the

interview/meeting. A report based on the Evaluation Committee’s

findings was sent to the parties and the authorities. Soon after,

Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for his in-person interview with

the Evaluation Committee. Accordingly, an addendum dated

25.10.2023 was issued, marking their presence, and concluding

that Aadith required guardianship.

3.7 In the interregnum, mediation sessions were scheduled to be held

between the parties. However, during this period, the Appellant

discovered that Respondent No. 4 and Aadith had left the US to

visit Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Chennai, India. This rendered the

Appellant entirely unaware of their travel and return itinerary.

Therefore, she was unable to maintain regular contact with her son.

3.8 While these developments were materialising, parallelly, the Idaho

Court appointed the Appellant as Aadith’s temporary guardian on

10.01.2024. Against this backdrop, investigations conducted by

the US Federal Authorities and the Idaho District Authorities

6 | P a g e

revealed that during the pendency of the proceedings, Respondent

No. 4 obtained Aadith’s passport and left the US on 31.12.2023.

On arriving in India, they began residing in Chennai with

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

3.9 By virtue of this, the Appellant, on 31.01.2024, filed an online

police complaint with Respondent No. 2. She then authorized her

brother, Respondent No. 1, to act on her behalf to retrieve custody

of Aadith. Thereupon, on 05.02.2024, the Appellant lodged a

complaint with the NRI Cell in Chennai. In furtherance thereto, the

Police Authorities in Chennai were able to retrieve Aadith ’s

passport number, along with the last known address and contact

details of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, Aadith and

Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 remained untraceable.

3.10 Concurrently, in the guardianship proceedings pending before the

Idaho Court, an Emergency Order came to be passed on

22.02.2024, directing Aadith to return to Boise, Idaho within 72

hours. When this direction was not followed, the Idaho Court

proceeded to decide the Guardianship Application in favour of the

Appellant, consequently appointing her as Aadith’s full and

permanent guardian on 09.04.2024. This order was passed after

duly hearing parties’ testimonies; and after reviewing the report

7 | P a g e

dated 17.05.2023 and addendum dated 25.10.2023 issued by the

Evaluation Committee.

3.11 Despite the decree passed by the Idaho Court, Aadith ’s

whereabouts remained unknown to the Appellant. This prompted

the Appellant to file H.C.P. No. 886/2024 before the High Court of

Judicature at Madras (High Court) through Respondent No. 1, inter

alia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to retrieve custody of Aadith from

Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and to handover his person to Respondent

No. 1.

3.12 During the proceedings, the High Court interacted with Aadith

and posed multiple questions to him. Based on the answers

tendered, the High Court, vide its judgment dated 09.08.2024,

primarily determined that there was no illegal detention because:

(i) Aadith was capable of understanding the questions posed by the

High Court; and (ii) He was happy and willing to reside in Chennai

with his father and his pate rnal grandparents (Impugned

Judgement). On 09.09.2024, the US Consulate General, Chennai

revoked Aadith’s passport.

3.13 Thus, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellant

preferred the instant appeal.

8 | P a g e

3.14 This Court, in the course of this appeal, passed the order dated

16.12.2024, issuing certain interim directions: (i) Respondent No.

4 was directed to facilitate video calls between the Appellant and

Aadith in the evening between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm IST. The call

duration was to be for a maximum of 30 minutes; (ii) Upon the

Appellant’s arrival in India, Respondent No. 4 was directed to

handover temporary custody of Aadith to her; (iii) While Aadith was

under the temporary custody of the Appellant, she and Respondent

No. 4 would ensure that he gets his medical treatment regularly

and preferably, in adherence with the recommendations of

specialists in the US; (iv) Respondent No. 4 was permitted to

contact Aadith daily while he was under the temporary custody of

the Appellant; and (v) The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 were

directed to consult the best doctors in Chennai for continued

treatment of Aadith.

3.15 In the meantime, Aadith, in a purported exercise of his own free

will, filed two interlocutory applications in the instant appeal. They

are I.A. No. 301117/2024 and I.A. No. 301051/2024, seeking to be

impleaded in the matter and seeking directions to keep the order

dated 16.12.2024 in abeyance till 07.01.2025, respectively. These

applications were accompanied by signed affidavits, stating that

Aadith was fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

9 | P a g e

case and that the applications had been prepared in consonance

with his instructions.

3.16 Simultaneously, being dissatisfied by Respondent No. 4’s non-

compliance with the order dated 16.12.2024, the Appellant

preferred the captioned Contempt Petition. She sought to allege

that despite the clear instructions enumerated in the order dated

16.12.2024, the Appellant was not allowed to interact with Aadith

on video call. Further, upon her arrival in Chennai, Respondent No.

4 refused to hand over temporary custody of Aadith. In fact, he

ceased all communication with her. When the Appellant arrived at

their flat on 24.12.2024, she was permitted to interact with Aadith

for roughly 30 minutes, forcing her to cut short her time with her

son and leave the flat without obtaining temporary custody of

Aadith.

3.17 Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for medical assessment to the

Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk in Chennai on 25.11.2024. On

Respondent No. 4’s request, Aadith was examined and an

Observation Report was prepared, which recorded as follows:

“Mr. Aadith Rajson Ramad orai 21 years, male was

registered in the Institute of Mental Health, Chennai – 10

on 25.11.2024. He was subsequently examined on

29.11.2024, 02.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 at his request

and the request of his father.

10 | P a g e

Detailed history was obtained from his father. Physical

examination, mental status examination and

psychological assessment were done. He has a history

of developmental delay since childhood. On

psychometry, he has an Intelligence quotient (IQ) of

54, which is suggestive of mild intellectual

disability (50% disability).

He is able to do simple work on instructions. He is able to

travel to familiar places alone. He is capable of living with

the assistance of his family members. He will require

support for making major decisions in life like

property management .”

3.18 Subsequently, this Court, vide order dated 08.01.2025, directed

that Aadith will reside with his younger brother, Arjun, and the

Appellant in Bengaluru, during the pendency of these proceedings.

Respondent No. 4 was permitted to visit and interact with his sons

for 3 hours every day. Further, the Appellant and Respondent No.

4 were directed to take the sons for medical assessment to the

National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences

(NIMHANS), Bengaluru, arguably one of the best institutes in the

country. The doctors at NIMHANS, Bengaluru were requested to

give their expert opinion as to whether Aadith is in a position to

make independent decisions. The report so prepared was ordered

to be submitted before this Court in a sealed cover.

3.19 It seems that the parties substantially complied with the order

dated 08.01.2025, particularly the directions concerning custody,

as Aadith has been residing with his younger brother and the

11 | P a g e

Appellant in Bengaluru ever since. In continued compliance with

the above order, Aadith and his brother were brought to NIMHANS,

Bengaluru on 13.01.2025 by their parents. They were duly

admitted as in-patients on 14.01.2025.

3.20 From 17.01.2025 to 29.01.2025, Aadith was examined by the

Department of Clinical Psychology at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. He was

administered 7 tests namely, the Vineland Social Maturity Scale

(VSMS), the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Skills – 3 (VABS), the

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – IV India Edition, the Binet

Kamat Test of Intelligence (BKT), the Comprehension Subtest from

Malin’s Intelligence Scale for Indian Children (MISIC), the Theory

of Mind/False Belief Tests (Anne and Sally Test; Matchbox Test),

and the Delayed Discounting Task. The test findings are

reproduced below:

“SOCIAL AND DAILY ADAPT IVE FUNCTIONS

Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS)

The VSMS was administered to assess his socio-adaptive

functioning. The patient’s social age was found to be

7 years, which corresponds to an SQ of 47, which

suggests Moderate level of disability in curre nt

socio-adaptive functioning, corresponding to 75%

disability. As Mr. Aadith has motor disabilities and that

would have affected his overall VSMS score, an attempt

was made to adjust the score by removing the scores

related to motor components from VSMS. This showed his

score as 53 (Impairment-adjusted SQ); which indicated

12 | P a g e

Moderate disability in socio -adaptive functioning

according to the VSMS score classification of revised

Gazette of India notification. However, the gazette

notification was mainly for intact VSMS score (i.e. not for

Impairment-adjusted SQ). Hence, the interpretation of

Impairment-Adjusted SQ to be done with caution.

It should be noted that VSMS is standardized in India

several decades ago and might not adequately reflect his

current level of socio-adaptive functioning, for mainly 2

reasons. One the patient is born and brought up in the

US, and that the standardization was done long time ago.

However, the limitations if has an influence would have

caused their score to inflate, rather than bring down.

Despite these limitations, his scores still showed that he

has Moderate level of disability in social and adaptive

functioning.

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale – 3 (VABS – 3) –

Comprehensive Form

The VABS-3 test was administered to assess his adaptive

behavior. The patient obtained a standard score of 38 on

the Communication domain, and 47 on the domain of

Daily Living Skills, both suggestive of deficits of

‘Moderately low’ level in these domains. His ability on the

domain of socialization showed significant disability as

well as a sub-domain scatter, where his coping skills

related to social domain was significantly lower

compared to the other domains of socialization such as

interpersonal relationships, play and leisure. He

obtained a total sum of domain standard scores of

100 corresponding to an Adaptive Behavior

Composite (ABC) of 34, suggestive of ‘Low’ level of

Adaptive Behavior on the current assessment.

INTELLIGENCE TESTS:

Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence (BKT)

On BKT, the patient’s basal age and terminal age were

found to be 6 years and 14 years respectively. His

prorated mental age obtained is 10 years. His prorated

intelligence quotient (IQ) is 63, indicating Mild level

of disability in intellectual functioning.

13 | P a g e

Similar to VSMS, BKT has been standardized in Indian

Population, several decades ago and intelligence value

obtained is through ratio method. Considering this, the

obtained IQ can be said as an inflated value, given that

Mr. Aadith has been born and bought up in USA. Despite

this, he has obtained a prorated IQ of 63, which is

in the Mild Intellectual Disability range.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV

INDIA Edition

(WAIS-4

INDIA)

On WAIS-4

INDIA, his Verbal Comprehension Index Score

was calculated to be 75. The perceptual Reasoning Index

was 53, the Working Memory Index (WMI) was calculated

to be 47, and the Processing Speed Index was 45. This

yields a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) of 53. This score falls in

the range of Mild Intellectual Disability. WAIS-4

INDIA

as the name implies is standardized for Indian

population. However, given the norms differences

between Indian and US population, the obtained scores

by Mr. Aadith if referred to Indian norms will yield a

higher score, compared to US norms. It should be noted

that despite this, his score is in the Mild Intellectual

Disability range.

Malin’s Intelligence Scale for Indian Children

(MISIC) – Comprehension Subtest

On the MISIC subtest of Comprehension, the patient

obtained a raw score of 05, corresponding to a test

quotient of 62, indicating Mild levels of disability in

comprehension. Again, relatively similar to in VSMS and

WAIS-4

INDIA, the MISIC is for children up to the age of 16

years and the norms are for Indian children. Despite this

his score is in the disability range.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING and DECISION MAKING:

Theory of Mind/False-Belief Tests

Theory of mind was tested using Anne and Sally test

False-Belief – Matchbox test.

The patient performed poorly on both Anne and Sally and

Matchbox tests, where he could not attribute mental

states (beliefs, intents) to others. That is, on test, he

14 | P a g e

spontaneously, did not view that the others have

their own thoughts/beliefs independent of himself.

Delay Discounting Task:

Delay Discounting Task primarily assesses decision

making and impulsivity. In this task Mr. Aadith

performed poorly in the second trail itself, where he

preferred significantly smaller reward –

immediately, forgoing significantly larger reward –

at a delay of one month. For example, when presented

with the patient a hypothetical scenario of choosing

between 10 INR now or 100 INR after a month, he said

100 INR after a month. However, with the follow -up

questions of choosing 20 INR now or 100 INR after a

month, he answered 20 INR now. He could not answer

the subsequent questions and had difficulty

understanding the value of money.

COMMENTS ABOUT INDEPENDENT DECISION

MAKING:

 Decision Making for Daily Living Activities:

As observed on VABS-3 and VSMS, the patient is

capable of carrying out basic daily activities, such

as brushing his teeth with an electric toothbrush,

adjusting water to the appropriate temperature for

bathing, and selecting suitable clothing based on

the weather. He can also spread sauces or jam using a

table knife, change clothes with large buttons, put on

shoes without laces, and use certain kitchen appliances,

such as bread toaster and a microwave oven, under

supervision.

However, he struggles with independent self -care

when left alone and has difficulty performing more

complex tasks. He faces challenges using a manual

toothbrush, handling a knife to cut fruits, and

independently seeking medical attention as needed.

Additionally, he would have difficulty operating

household appliances safely, such as a vacuum

cleaner, iron, or power tools.

While he is able to tell time using the digital watch, he

struggles with reading an analog clock. Furthermore, he

has difficulty exercising discretion and judgment in

15 | P a g e

higher-level activities, such as traveling alone to

unfamiliar places or setting and achieving long -

term goals that require planning over two years or

more.

Impression: Independent Decision-making ability is

adequate for basic activities but inadequate for

higher-level activities.

 Decision Making for Financial Safety:

When asked to make payments or explicit purchases, the

patient shows responsibility with a small amount of

money. He is careful about this and uses it as directed.

However, he has not able to make independent

decisions with regard to monetary aspects in

relatively higher values.

He has also been observed to have difficulty

differentiating currency values and providing the correct

change. When asked which currency had a higher

value, 100 INR or 500 INR, he chose 100 INR. The

same error was observed when questioned about US

currency. Additionally, he struggled with basic

mathematics, such as addition and subtraction. For

instance, when given a scenario where 50 INR was spent

on ice cream, and 100 INR was handed to the

shopkeeper, he could not determine the correct return

amount. He also had difficulties performing similar other

simple, mental calculations of verbal in nature, involving

two-digit numbers about subtraction, multiplication, and

division.

Financial safety and related aspects were to have

significant deficits.

Impression: He cannot make independent decision

in financial aspects.

 Decision Making for Socialization:

On VABS-3, it was observed that the patient can

recognize emotions and express his feelings through

words. He shares toys and possessions voluntarily

without being prompted and takes turns naturally while

playing games or sports. Additionally, he can join a group

when verbal and nonverbal cues indicate he is welcome

16 | P a g e

and adjusts his behaviour to avoid disturbing others

nearby.

However, he struggles with playing complex games that

involve rules and has difficulty imitating intricate actions

hours after observing them, such as shaving, vacuuming,

or hammering nails. He also faces challenges in

modulating his speech appropriately in terms of loudness,

speed, and excitement to match the conversation.

Engaging in discussions on topics that do not interest him

is difficult, as is initiating conversations by discussing

subjects relevant to others. He also struggles to pick up

on indirect cues or hints in conversations and has

difficulty providing additional explanations to ensure his

message is understood.

Furthermore, he would have difficulty planning activities

that require coordinating multiple elements, such as

organizing a birthday party or a group outing. He also

lacks the ability to navigate social situations

safely, such as going out with peers in the evening

without supervision, social media, and identifying

harmful relationships or situations. This includes

difficulty avoiding or exiting situations where he

might be bullied, coerced into illegal activities, or

taken advantage of sexually or financially.

Impression: Independent decision making in simple

social and close group/family/home aspects is

adequate, but anything beyond is inadequate.

 Decision Making for Occupation:

It was observed that the patient can sometimes

complete routine household tasks wh en instructed,

use basic tools or utensils, and draw simple shapes

and objects with pencils or crayons.

However, he would have difficulty engaging in

small remunerative work , such as making simple

garments, performing minor repairs, taking the initiative

in occasional tasks like housework, or assisting in child

care. Additionally, he would struggle with creative

activities, including making useful items, raising pets,

writing simple stories or poems, or creating basic

paintings.

17 | P a g e

He also faces challenges in performing responsible

routine chores appropriate for his age, such as

assisting with household tasks, caring for a

garden, cleaning a car, washing windows, setting

the table, or fetching water. Furthermore, as

observed on VABS -3, he would have difficulty

maintaining a job for at least one year, even if it

required only 10 hours of work per week.

Impression: Decision-making in very basic

occupational skills is adequate and beyond that it

is inadequate.

OVERALL IMPRESSION:

Considering his intellectual disability, which is at

the Mild disability level, and all the other findings

mentioned above as well as considering his

spontaneous verbalizations mentioned above; we

are of the opinion that Mr. Aadith is functioning at

the level of about 8 to 10 years old child in general.

Given this, any complex decisions that exceeds the

capacity of an 8-to 10-year-old, he would not be able

to make informed decisions by himself; and even if

he makes, those decisions would be made without

considering all the options and repercussions that

come with decision making.”

3.21 During his stay at NIMHANS, Bengaluru , on 22.01.2025, the

Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology assessed Aadith’s

speaking abilities. Their findings, as enumerated in the

handwritten report, are as follows:

“Phonology:

 Omission of [‘l’] in initial, medial, and final position.

 Substitution of [‘l’] with [‘r’] in initial, medial, and final

position.

 Substitution of [‘t’] with [‘s’] in initial, medial, and final

position.

18 | P a g e

Morphosyntax:

 He uses simple, compound sentence structure in

sentences and in conversation.

 He consistently uses morphological markers such as

bound morpheme, inflectional morpheme , free

morphemes.

 He uses suffix, prefix to change tense.

 He uses singular and plurals in sentences and in

conversation.

 He compares and contrasts.

 He uses verbs to nouns in conversation and sentences.

 He uses adjectives to describe objects.

 He uses negations in the form of ‘No’.

 He can formulate questions (what, who, where).

 He uses conjunction in conversations, sentences.

 He produces errors in free sentences.

 He uses time formation such as past tense, future

tense.

 He uses singular possessions and plural possessions

in conversation and in sentences.

 He uses adverbs (here, there).

 He uses affixes (ing format to describe).

Semantics:

 He understands abstract words.

 He understands meaning of words based on context

and interprets multiple meanings.

 He understands idiomatic expression.

 He understands sentence structure to interpret.

 He can understand simple meaning from a story but

has difficulty in understanding complex meanings.

 He can understand jokes and reacts to it.

 He has difficulty in understanding figurative language.

 He has difficulty in understanding inference from a

complex scenario when given.

 He had difficulty in understanding complex false

beliefs and assumptions.

 He has difficulty in understanding complex synonyms,

antonyms.

 He can answer to simple ‘wh’ questions but has

difficulty in answering complex ‘wh’ questions.

19 | P a g e

Intelligibility: AYJNIHH rating scale level 02.

Impression: Inadequate speech and language and

developmental dysarthria 2° IDD & CP.

Advice:

 Speech and language intervention.

 Attend DT session in department.

 Counselling.

 Follow up during next visit to NIMHANS on

Mon/Tue/Wed/Fri @ 8:30 am.”

3.22 On 03.02.2025, the Department of Clinical Psychology

administered the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to Aadith, to

assess his understanding of interpersonal relationships. The

findings of this test are reproduced below:

“Behavioural Observations:

The patient came to the interview willingly. His attention

could be aroused and sustained. Patient was cooperative

and interested in the testing throughout the session. He

was able to comprehend the instructions adequately.

Summary of Test Findings:

The patient’s stories were reasonably imaginative

content. Although he described what was given in the

pictures he was able to attribute thoughts and feelings to

the characters. The predominant theme that emerged

from the stories was one of a family unit enjoying various

activities together such as eating, going for a hike,

planning a feast in others' home or inviting guests over.

The stories also indicated how one has to learn and

behave during various interpersonal conflicts. He showed

good problem solving skills such as adequate

communication with others during conflicts, rethinking

one’s actions and consequences.”

20 | P a g e

3.23 Thereafter, on 05.02.2025, the Department of Psychiatric Social

Work prepared the Psychosocial Assessment Report after studying

parameters such as Aadith’s living arrangements throughout the

years, his education, training, occupation, and future plans.

Further, exhaustive interviews were conducted with the Appellant

and Respondent No. 4, individually, to determine their perspectives

on parenting, expectations from Aadith, plans for his future, and

opinions about the other parent. The findings are extracted as

follows:

“Upbringing and living arrangements: From birth to 2

years of age, the client lived with his parents in Boise

City, Idaho, U.S., till their separation in 2005. From 2005

to 2007, as per the temporary orders by the Idaho court,

the client and his younger brother stayed with their father

for one whole week in a month, while the remaining 3

weeks were spent with their mother. After the parents’

divorce in 2007, the living arrangement changed; the

children would stay with their mother from Monday to

Thursday, and their father from Friday to Sunday, and

both houses were 5 to 7 miles apart. The vacations were

equally spent with both parents separately, taking into

consideration the father’s nature of the job. This practice

continued till 2017-2018, after which the mother

requested an alternative week arrangement and thus,

from 2018 to 2021, the client and his younger brother

stayed with each parent on alternate weeks of the month.

During their stay with the father, he took care of all the

needs of the children by himself including supervision,

feeding and self-care, while the mother had assistance

with the same. The mother reported that both children

were cared for by the father, and she didn’t notice any

behavioural changes in the client during their stay with

the father. Up to 2019, both parents had equal joint

custody, physical and legal custody of the client. In

2019, Idaho court granted the mother the legal

21 | P a g e

custody of both children while both parents shared

the physical custody till 2021 when the client

became an adult.

The client and his younger brother stayed with

their mother from 202l to 2022, when the father

returned to India to care for his parents, which the

mother was also aware of. The father came back to the

U.S. in 2022 to meet the client and his brother; the client

lived with his father independently from 2022 to 2024 in

the U.S. In January 2024, the client came to India with

his father to stay with his grandparents and lived here

since then.

Education: The client started schooling at the age of 5

years. From the beginning, he followed the Individual

Education Plan (IEP). The client attended an

integrated school with special schooling and

standard classes. From middle school onwards, the

client attended classes under the supervision of a

special educator. He completed his 12th class and

diploma in 2022 instead of 2021 as his mother decided

to extend the training for individual living skill training

and job skill training.

Training attended: The client attended the Infant-

Toddler Programme for 3 years (birth to 3 years of age),

followed by training in the Head Start programme till 5

years of age. These programmes were provided mainly to

address the client’s developmental delay and physical

difficulties. In addition to the special training and

physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupati on

therapy from his school, the client also attended

professional handwriting training at home (Handwriting

without Tears programme) for 3 years during elementary

schooling, physical exercise in parks and once a week

half-day social skill training through exposure to social

gatherings from 2017 onwards, which his mother

supervised. During the client’s stay with his father, the

client was informally trained by his father on quick loop-

back therapy, a form of physiotherapy for 5 years. In

addition to that, the father would take the client for 1 to

2-mile walking. From 2013 to 2017, under a club, the

client was trained in swimming and physical activities to

gain strength and gait training.

22 | P a g e

Occupation: The client worked for one year as a Patient

Coordinator at a dental clinic in North Carolina, which

had been owned by his paternal aunt. Following this, the

client did a six-month internship as a Hospitality worker,

during which he travelled alone using a special

transportation service arranged by InReach. The client

attended Skill-based vocational training for 3 months in

India under the Department of Adult Independent Living

at the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with

Multiple Disabilities, Chennai. During all these periods,

the client maintained good relationships with his

colleagues and clients, and there were no complaints

against him.

Citizenship and related concerns: The client is a U.S.

citizen by birth and was registered with the Overseas

Citizen of India (OCI). The OCl certificate was issued on

29.03.2011, allowing the client multiple entries to India

for a lifetime.

Plan: During the client’s stay in the U.S., he visited India

five times and stayed in India for a total of 1 year and 6

months. The client reported that he wishes to stay

and spend time with his younger brother, complete

his independent living skill training, and start his

own business in the U.S.

Observations

 Both parents have expressed willingness to provide the

client with emotional, physical, and financial support

throughout his future.

 Both parents have a stable support system, including

financial and physical resources.

● Both parents have concerns regarding the client’s care

given to the opposite parties.

● Both parents blamed the other and believed the other

party could not care for the client.

● The father criticised the mother as having mental health

concerns and unable to care for the children

independently. At the same time, the mother portrayed

the father as emotionally weak and attempting to impose

faith-based practices on the client.

● The father believes the client has reached an age -

appropriate level of development and is legally an adult,

eliminating the need for custodianship.

23 | P a g e

● The mother reports that the client has difficulties

performing specific tasks and may require assistance

with decision-making, necessitating guardianship.

● The mother is willing to accept the father as a co -

guardian.

● The client is more comfortable with the U.S. and

wants to start working there. He had stayed in

India for less than 2 years and had difficulty

understanding and speaking the local language.

However, the client had no difficulty in staying in

India.

Interpretations

● Both parents are concerned about the client’s future and

are willing to support him and assist in enhancing his

quality of life. However, their interpersonal relationship

issues with each other and unhealthy communication

create different opinions regarding the client’s future.

● The differences in the parents’ preferences for the client’s

autonomy further led the parents to have different ideas

about how the client should live his life and make

decisions.

● Both parents are also worried they will lose their

importance as parents if the other party gets the client’s

guardianship.

● Though the client was comfortable staying in India,

he wishes to return to the U.S. and start working

there. Both parents want the client to live freely and

as per his wish, regardless of where he wishes to

stay.

Recommendations

● Parents are recommended to attend parenting skills

training by a qualified family therapist at least twice a

month, in-person or online.

● If parental conflicts continue, the client should be

offered supervised care by a recognised institution

in the U.S. to focus on building independent living

skills and autonomy of the client as he wishes to

live in the U.S. in the future.

● The focus of the care has to be on nurturing the skills and

autonomy of the client in an environment where he feels

comfortable and familiar.”

24 | P a g e

3.24 Finally, after completing all the assessments, on 06.02.2025,

NIMHANS, Bengaluru prepared the Comprehensive Assessment

Report based on a thorough review of past medical records and the

various assessments conducted by different departments of

NIMHANS. They assessed: (i) the Eligibility Reports for Specialized

Education and Progress and the Evaluation Assessment Reports

from 2015 to 2022 issued by the West Ada School District, Idaho,

US; (ii) The report dated 17.05.2023 and the addendum dated

23.10.2023 prepared by the Evaluation Committee; (iii) The Patient

Summaries from 2003 to 2005 issued by St. Luke ’s Regional

Medical Centre, Boise, Idaho; (iv) The Observation Report dated

11.12.2024 issued by the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk,

Chennai; and (v) The assessment reports issued by various

departments of NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The relevant extracts of the

Comprehensive Assessment Report are reproduced below:

1. “Salient Points from the Available Past Records

At birth, Mr. Adith Ramadorai had complications,

including delayed cry and neonatal seizures. T hese

complications resulted in delayed achievement of

developmental milestones. He has been diagnosed with

Intellectual Disability and Other Specified

Neurodevelopmental Disorder associated with Cerebral

Palsy in the United States. His full-scale IQ composite

score of 53, which places him in the “very low range

of cognitive ability”. He has exhibited significant

cognitive limitations, including deficits in spatial-

perceptual reasoning, conceptual reasoning,

knowledge retention, and recall ability.

25 | P a g e

He was also evaluated in the Institute of Mental Health,

Kilpauk, Chennai and diagnosed with Mild Intellectual

Disability with an IQ score of 54 with 50% disability.

2. Comprehensive Medical Assessment

The assessments corroborated the earlier diagnoses of

Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and Disorder of Intellectual

Development, Mild. Additionally, relevant laboratory and

clinical investigations were carried out. His genetic testing

reports are awaited.

The psychological assessments included the Vineland

Social Maturity Scale (VSMS), Vineland Adaptive

Behaviour Skills (VABS), Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale - IVth Edition, Binet-Kamat Test of Intelligence

(BKT), comprehension subtest from Malin's Intelligence

Scale for Indian Children (MISC), Theory of Mind/False

Belief Test, and Delayed Discounting Task. The results

indicated that Mr. Aadith Ramadorai falls within

the category of Mild Intellectual Disability, with an

overall functioning level equivalent to that of an 8

to 10 year old child.

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) revealed that Mr.

Aadith Ramadorai exhibits imaginative thinking, with

adequate production of themes that may be understood

psychodynamically as wishful thinking in the

background of the realities of parental separation and

existing family dynamics.

The psychosocial assessment highlighted that both

parents are concerned about Mr. Aadith Ramadorai ’s

future and are committed to supporting and enhancing

his quality of life. However, their interpersonal conflicts

and communication patterns result in differing and often

contradictory choices presented before Aadith, who has

limitations in cognitive and intellectual capabilities to

reconcile and resolve such differences.

The occupational therapy evaluation indicated that Mr.

Aadith Ramadorai has limited functi onal abilities,

impaired hand function, motor incoordination, and

dependency on others for activities of daily living. Gait

and balance training have been recommended to improve

his mobility.

26 | P a g e

The speech and language assessment determined that

Mr. Aadith Ramadorai has inadequate speech and

language development and dysarthria, which is

secondary to his Intellectual Disability and Cerebral

Palsy.

On neuropsychiatric assessment, Mr. Aadith Ramadorai

was found to have limitations in attention, memory,

language, and executive function, with deficits in abstract

thinking, problem-solving, and motor coordination.

Significant difficulties are noted in constructional ability,

right-left orientation, and frontal lobe tasks.

Mr Adith Ramadorai ’s extent of overall disability

resulting from Mild Intellectual Developmental

Disorder and Cerebral palsy falls under the

category of Severe disability with 080%.

Mr. Adith Ramadorai has consistently demonstrated the

level of understanding and reasoning that equipped him

to participate with the clinical team in all the assessments

and provide his assent for all the interventions. However,

as alluded to above, he has limitations with

complex decision-making.

3. Expert Opinion on Mr. Adith Ramadorai ’s

Decision-Making Ability

Based on the results of the comprehensive

multidisciplinary evaluation detailed above, we infer that

Mr. Aadith Ramadorai demonstrates independent

decision-making abilities for basic activities, such as

performing simple arithmetic calculations, engaging in

basic social interactions within close circles, and carrying

out fundamental occupational tasks. However, he

exhibits significant limitations in making informed

decisions concerning higher-level activities of daily

living, financial matters, and complex social and

occupational responsibilities.

His psychological limitations are further compounded by

physical impairments, including difficulties in writing,

speech, and mobility. Given his mild intellectual

disability and associated physical challenges, his

overall cognitive functioning is comparable to that

of an 8-to-10-year-old child. Consequently, he lacks

the ability to make complex, informed decisions

27 | P a g e

independently. In situations requiring higher-order

reasoning, evaluation of multiple options, or

consideration of long-term consequences, he would

require external guidance and support. Any

decisions made beyond his cognitive capacity may

not be well-informed or thoroughly considered.

In light of these fin dings, it is respectfully

submitted that Mr. Aadith Ramadorai has an

overall level of intellectual functioning of an 8 to 10

year old child. He is capable of making basic

personal decisions, but he has limitations in

making complex, independent decisions c oncerning

financial, legal, social, and occupational matters

without substantial support and oversight .”

3.25 The aforementioned Comprehensive Assessment Report was duly

submitted, in a sealed cover, to this Court on 19.02.2025, in the

presence of all parties and copies were supplied to them. This

report will play a crucial role in analysing and adjudicating the

underlying dispute in the instant appeal.

B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

4. Ms. V. Mohana, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the

Appellant, contended that the High Court fell in grave error in its

decision and advanced the following submissions:

(a) The High Court passed the Impugned Judgement merely on an

oral examination of Aadith. The High Court ignored the specific

pleadings regarding his intellectual disability and cognitive

limitations, substantiated by the reports of the Evaluation

28 | P a g e

Committee. Thus, the High Court did not adequately assess

his ability to provide consent.

(b) Aadith has resided in the US his entire life. Since the age of 8

years, he had been receiving specialized education there and

was unable to begin the next level of schooling designed for

him, owing to his extended and unplanned stay in India.

Further, Aadith qualifies for social security benefits and

disability services provided by the State, including free medical

care and a maximum supplemental income in excess of USD

960 per month. Additionally, he is covered by the health

insurance provided by the Appellant’s employer until he turns

26 years old. Upon turning 26 years old, he would be eligible

for full medical coverage owing to the Medicaid Program of the

State and Federal Departments of the US. Finally, once he is

able to work, he would be covered by the F ederal Social

Security Disability Insurance Program, which would cover any

loss of income faced as a result of his disability. By permitting

him to continue residing in India, the High Court did not act

according to his best interests and welfare.

29 | P a g e

(c) The High Court failed to consider that at the time of hearing of

the Habeas Corpus petition, the Idaho Court had already

granted the Appellant full and permanent guardianship over

Aadith. In this context, the High Court should have shown

more restraint as the parties involved were US citizens and

their rights and liabilities were already being dealt with by a

court of competent jurisdiction in their native state in the US.

(d) Aadith was being manipulated an d tutored against the

Appellant by Respondent No. 4. Through this, Respondent No.

4 was actively trying to disobey the Court ’s orders by

restricting Aadith’s access to the Appellant.

5. Per contra, Ms. Liz Mathew, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on

behalf of Respondent No. 4, put forth the following submissions:

(a) Aadith is completely mentally fit to make decisions about his

own welfare and well-being. Despite his limitations, he is

capable of informed judgment and independent or supported

decision-making. He does not require a guardian by any means

and needs only some support and assistance, which

Respondent No. 4 has been duly providing.

30 | P a g e

(b) Respondent No. 4 has never manipulated or coerced his son,

Aadith, who desired to go to India and stay with his father.

Furthermore, after the order dated 16.12.2024 was read over

to Aadith, he expressed that he did not want to reside with his

mother, even though he had been interacting with her

frequently on video call. In fact, when he met his mother on

24.12.2024, he was visibly distressed by the Appellant

drudging up old memories to convince him to live with her. He

also expressed that he wanted to be represented in the

proceedings before this Court. Having sought legal

consultation, Respondent No. 4 was informed that as Aadith

was a major, he had the right to consult and appoint his own

lawyers. Accordingly, Aadith interacted with a lawyer in Delhi

over calls and provided instructions to file the interlocutory

applications before this Court. The decision not to live with the

Appellant was solely taken by Aadith, out of his own free will

and based on the legal advice he received.

(c) Respondent No. 4, as Aadith ’s primary caregiver, has

safeguarded his son’s best interests and welfare in India. He

has been provided with a stable, nurturing, and supportive

environment where he has been encouraged to express his

opinions and exercise his autonomy. In comparison, under the

31 | P a g e

Appellant’s care, Aadith’s social, physical, and psychological

growth were being impeded due to the Appellant’s constant

dismissal of Aadith’s capacities. With Respondent No. 4’s

guidance, Aadith has been undergoing requisite sessions for

skill training for persons with disabilities in Chennai, is living

under the loving embrace of his paternal family, and is able to

showcase greater autonomy, thus attesting to his best

interests and welfare being served.

(d) The assessment conducted by the Institute of Mental Health,

Kilpauk diagnosed Aadith with Mild Intellectual Disability,

established an IQ score of 54, and recognized a disability level

of 50%. This is in stark contrast to the report prepared by

NIMHANS, Bengaluru. Persons with borderline, mild, or

moderate intellectual disabilities are capable of living in

normal social conditions, though they may need some

supervision or assistance from time to time. Aadith ’s

developmental delays should not be equated with mental

incapacity and his decisions should be respected under law.

C. ISSUES

6. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the events that have

transpired and the submissions at length, the following issues arise

for the consideration of this Court:

32 | P a g e

i. Whether Aadith is capable of making independent decisions?

ii. Whether Aadith’s best interests and welfare would be served

by permitting him to continue residing with Respondent No. 4

in India?

D. ANALYSIS

D.1 Issue No. 1: Aadith’s capacity to make independent decisions

7. The issue herein concerns Aadith’s ability to make independent

decisions regarding his future and well-being. To this end, the

Appellant argued that Aadith has had an intellectual disability

since childhood, resulting in a full-scale IQ of 53, which features in

the ‘very low range of cognitive ability’. To substantiate this, she

relied on the detailed report dated 17.05.2023 and the addendum

dated 23.10.2023 prepared by the Evaluation Committee

constituted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. She

pointed out specific findings in these reports including that, Aadith

‘lacked the capacity to make decisions, even at a rudimentary

level’ and that he ‘was someone who could be easily

manipulated into speaking, signing, or acting against his

own best interest.’ Furthermore, she adduced the decision of the

Idaho Court which declared him to be a ‘Developmentally

Disabled Person’ and a ‘Vulnerable Adult.’ She contended that

by virtue of his disability, he cannot make independent, legally-

33 | P a g e

binding decisions on subjects that will substantially impact his

future, such as, his place of permanent residence.

8. Per contra, Respondent No. 4 has vehemently argued that Aadith,

though suffering from a disability, is mentally fit to make decisions

about his own welfare and well-being. To substantiate this, he

relied on the Observation Report dated 11.12.2024 issued by the

Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai. In fact, Respondent

No. 4 has placed on record that Aadith wants to reside in India with

him and not with his mother. Furthermore, the High Court had

interacted with Aadith and concluded that he was consensually

living with Respondent No. 4 in India.

9. That being the fundamental dissonance between the parties ’

viewpoints and to arrive at a conclusive determination regarding

his cognitive capacity, as mentioned earlier, on 08.01.2025 this

Court requested for Aadith and his younger brother, Arjun, to

undergo medical assessment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. In

pursuance thereof, the doctors at NIMHANS, Bengaluru were

requested to provide their expert opinion as to whether Aadith is in

a position to make independent decisions.

34 | P a g e

10. The reports, as extracted in paras 3.20 to 3.24, were duly received

by this Court in a sealed cover on 19.02.2025. The contents have

been thoroughly examined. It may be seen that Aadith was brought

to NIMHANS, Bengaluru on 13.01.2025 by his parents and was

admitted as an in-patient on 14.01.2025, with his brother. Detailed

assessments were then conducted in collaboration with the

Departments of Clinical Psychology, Psychiatric Social Work,

Neurology, Speech Pathology and Audiology, Neurorehabilitation

and Genetics. To properly understand the report, it is necessary to

lay down the conclusions of the assessments individually

conducted by each department and then, advert to the final

findings in the Comprehensive Assessment Report.

11. First, the Department of Clinical Psychology (see para 3.20)

administered seven tests to Aadith and on the basis of the same

noted that: (i) He is capable of carrying out basic daily activities,

such as brushing his teeth and selecting clothing; (ii) He struggles

with independent self-care when left alone and has difficulty

performing more complex tasks such as, handling a knife to cut

fruits and seeking medical attention; (iii) He struggles with basic

addition and subtraction; (iv) He has difficulty performing simple

mental calculations; (v) He lacks the ability to navigate social

situations safely and identify harmful relationships or situations;

35 | P a g e

(vi) He would have difficulty engaging in small remunerative work

such as, making simple garments and making minor repairs; (vii)

He faces challenges performing routine, responsible chores for his

age such as, cleaning a car and washing windows; and (viii) He

would have difficulty maintaining a job for at least one year, even if

required to work only 10 hours per week. Owing to this, the report

by the Department of Clinical Psychology concluded that Aadith

functions at the level of an 8 to 10-year-old child. As a result, he

would not be able to make informed decisions by himself. Even in

the event he made such decisions, they would be made without

considering all available options and repercussions.

12. Second, the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology (see

para 3.21), in their report, noted that Aadith uses and understands

simple sentences, but struggles to utilize and comprehend complex

sentences. The report concluded that his speech and langua ge

abilities were inadequate, overall.

13. Lastly, the Department of Psychiatric Social Work (see para 3.23)

studied Aadith’s living arrangements, education, training,

occupation, and future plans. Further, exhaustive interviews were

conducted with the Appellant and Respondent No. 4, individually,

to determine their perspectives on parenting, expectations from

Aadith, plans for his future, and opinions about the other parent.

36 | P a g e

Based on this, the Psychosocial Assessment Report noted that

Aadith wanted to return to the US and start working there. Further,

it was observed that both parents wanted him to live freely and as

per his wish, regardless of where he wishes to stay. Ultimately, the

report by the Department of Psychiatric Social Work recommends

that: (i) if the parental conflicts continue, Aadith should be offered

supervised care by a recognized institution in the US; and (ii) the

focus of his care must be on nurturing his skills and autonomy in

an environment where he feels most comfortable and familiar.

14. Finally, the Comprehensive Assessment Report was prepared after

a thorough review of past medical records and the exhaustive

medical assessments conducted by various departments in

NIMHANS, Bengaluru (see para 3.24). This report notes that: (i)

From birth till the age of 20, Aadith was living in the US; (ii) He has

a full-scale composite IQ score of 53, which places him in the ‘very

low range of cognitive ability’; (iii) He has significant cognitive

limitations such as, conceptual reasoning, spatial -perceptual

reasoning, knowledge, retention, and recall ability; (iv) His overall

functioning level is equivalent to that of an 8 to 10-year-old child;

and (v) His extent of overall disability, resulting from Mild

Intellectual Developmental Disorder and Cerebral Palsy falls under

the category of severe disability with 80%.

37 | P a g e

15. The Comprehensive Assessment Report , thus concludes that

Aadith demonstrates independent decision-making abilities for

basic activities such as, simple arithmetic calculations and basic

social interactions within close circles. It put forth that he exhibits

significant limitations in taking decisions concerning higher-level

activities of daily living, financial matters, and complex social and

occupational responsibilities. His psychological limitations were

underlined to be further compounded by his physical impairments

and as such, he lacks the ability to make complex, informed

decisions independently. Additionally, it detailed that those

situations requiring higher-order reasoning, evaluation of multiple

options, or consideration of long-term consequences require

external guidance and support. In essence, the report conclusively

laid down that independent decisions made beyond Aadith’s

cognitive capacity may not be well -informed or thoroughly

considered.

16. These findings are further substantiated by the report dated

17.05.2023 and the addendum dated 23.10.2023 prepared by the

Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department of

Health and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities

Program). The Evaluation Committee consisted of a Psychologist, a

Physician, and a Social Worker. The report dated 17.05.2023 was

38 | P a g e

prepared based on an in-person interview with the Appellant and

the documents provided by both parties. These documents

included the Guardianship Petition, Counter-Petition, several of

Aadith’s medical reports over the years, eligibility reports from his

school, and background check reports from 2022 and 2023. The

report dated 17.05.2023 concluded that, among others: (i) He does

not have the capacity to live independently without any supervision

or assistance; (ii) Language must be overly simplified for him to

understand; (iii) He requires constant guidance, assistance, and

supervision in performing basic self-care tasks such as eating,

hygiene, grooming; and (iv) He requires a combinatio n of

specialized care and inter-disciplinary treatments which are

lifelong and individually planned. The report notes that his

cognitive limitations significantly impact his ability to manage his

health, food, finances, and safety needs without support and

therefore, he requires some type of guardianship.

17. After this report was sent to the parties and the authorities,

Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for his in-person interview with

the Evaluation Committee. Thereafter, an addendum dated

25.10.2023 was issued. This addendum dated 25.10.2023, while

reiterating all the previously stated conclusions, also stated that he

presents as someone who can be easily misguided and

39 | P a g e

manipulated. Ultimately, the Evaluation Committee recommended

full guardianship by one, but not both parents, as Aadith could be

easily maneuvered into speaking, signing, or acting against his own

best interest. Further, the Evaluation Committee opined that his

voice was not being heard in decisions concerning him as he had

been denied access to his mother and his brother.

18. The Observation Report issued by the Institute of Mental Health,

Kilpauk, Chennai (see para 3.17) and relied upon by Respondent

No. 4, does not seem to have considered Aadith ’s old medical

records and reports when evaluating him. In fact, it seems that

Aadith’s medical history was obtained only from his father.

Furthermore, the Observation Report does not specify how Aadith

was assessed, which parameters were used for assessment, and

which tests were administered to him during the evaluation. For

these reasons alone, the Observation Report cannot be relied upon.

Regardless, it clearly and unequivocally states that Aadith requires

assistance in making complex and important life decisions.

19. It is pertinent to note that the report and addendum of the

Evaluation Committee were brought on the record of the High

Court, to help them decide whether Aadith was living consensually

in India. However, the Impugned Judgement has not dealt with the

40 | P a g e

medical assessments or school records in any capacity. In fact, the

High Court has passed its judgement simply based on a few

minutes of oral interaction with Aadith. In this regard, we are

constrained to hold that the High Court’s decision was passed in

haste, without fully delving into the nuances of the matter.

20. In our considered view, even though Courts are well within their

rights to come to a finding distinct from an expert’s report, they

cannot discard the expert’s opinion, as a whole, for no rhyme or

reason. Given that the dispute before the High Court concerned the

sensitive and complex issue of alleged illegal detention of a person

with severe cognitive limitations, the High Court ought to have

considered and given due credence to the Evaluation Committee’s

report. If the High Court had any doubt as to the reliability of the

report and its conclusions, it ought to have ordered an enquiry

through a reputable medical institution. Dismissing all aspects of

scientific assessment in a highly specialized and niche area of

medicine was misconceived and ill-founded. As such, the Impugned

Judgement does not enlighten us as to Aadith’s decision-making

abilities.

41 | P a g e

21. For this purpose, we must rely on the reports produced by

NIMHANS, Bengaluru and the Evaluation Committee. At the risk of

reiteration, it seems to us that both bodies have concurred that

owing to his cognitive and physical limitations, Aadith does not

possess the capacity to make well -informed, independent

decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as

long-term residence.

22. In the event there is any confusion or doubt regarding a person’s

capacity and ability to make independent decisions and if there is

a definitive opinion on disability endorsed by a specialist, domain

expert, or a doctor, the Court should give due credence to that

opinion. If the expert’s report concludes that the mental or physical

age of the person concerned is well below the age of majority, there

can be no inference of any ‘implied’ or ‘express’ consent to any act

which might have a substantive impact on the consenting person.

Unless there are strong reasons to disbelieve an expert’s report to

this effect, the Courts must be overly-cautious in coming to a

finding contrary thereto. Bearing this principle in mind, we must

conclude that as Aadith was assessed to possess the cognitive

abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning assigned by the

High Court, of him consenually living in India, is seriously errant.

42 | P a g e

23. As a result, we must answer the first issue in the negative—Aadith

cannot make independent, legally-binding decisions on his own. In

light of this, we find ourselves compelled to hold that the High

Court erred in coming to a finding on Aadith’s alleged illegal

detention solely based on his perceived ‘independent’ decision to

reside in India with Respondent No. 4.

D.2 Issue No. 2: Aadith’s best interests and welfare

24. Since we have already opined that Aadith cannot make

independent decisions, it is the duty of the Court, under the parens

patriae doctrine, to determine the course of action that would best

serve his interests and welfare.

1

25. To this end, the Appellant contended that Aadith’s best interests

would be served by repatriating him to the US, where he could

complete his schooling in a familiar environment and reside in the

company of his younger brother, to whom he is deeply attached.

She further contended that Aadith would be subject to ‘Parental

Alienation Syndrome’ if allowed to stay long-term with Respondent

1 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, para 45.

43 | P a g e

No. 4. For this, the Appellant has relied on Sheoli Hati v. Somnath

Das

2 and Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh.

3

26. Per contra, Respondent No. 4 contended that though specially-

abled, Aadith’s wishes should be the sole criterion to determine his

place of residence. For this, he has placed reliance on Girish v.

Radhamony K.

4 and Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn .

5

Let us analyze these cases to determine whether they substantiate

the stand taken by Respondent No. 4.

27. First and foremost, Girish v. Radhamony K. (supra) concerned

the alleged kidnapping of a minor girl. The girl came before the

Court, claimed to be major, and expressed that she had left of her

own will and volition. This Court held that, on this basis, the

Habeas Corpus petition should have been dismissed instead of the

High Court directing the registration of an FIR. Unlike the instant

case, she made the decision independently as she was a fully

functioning adult with no conditions limiting her cognitive ability.

The lack of cognitive impairment , alone, renders this case

unreliable in the instant proceedings.

2

Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490.

3

Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231.

4

Girish v. Radhamony K., (2009) 16 SCC 360.

5 Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1.

44 | P a g e

28. The judgement in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn.

(supra) pertained to terminating the pregnancy of a wom an

suffering from mild to moderate mental retardation, who had been

impregnated through rape. The expert body noted that her mental

age was equivalent to that of a 9-year-old child. Respondent No. 4

appears to rely on this case because this Court provided due

deference to the opinions and desires of the victim-therein, who was

observed to have the same level of cognitive functioning as Aadith.

However, the rationale for relying on her opinions was extremely

nuanced and motivated by other factors.

29. This Court held that the language of the Medical Termination of

Pregnancy Act, 1971 required the Court to respect the decision of

a major. Alongside this, the Court considered the fact that at such

a late stage in the pregnancy, it would have been dangerous to

direct her to undergo an abortion. The Court was seemingly

influenced by an assurance of the Chairperson of the National

Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental

Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities that the Trust was prepared

to look after the interests of the victim in question, including

assistance with childcare. Since there is no Statute prescribing a

particular course of action in the instant case and Aadith is

unlikely to face life-threatening repercussions due to a decision of

45 | P a g e

this Court, the above-stated decision does not support Respondent

No. 4’s case. Regardless thereto, we reiterate the correct principle

of law, which we have briefly drawn in para 22.

30. Curiously, both parties have relied on a common judgement, i.e.

Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) ,

6 albeit for

different reasons. Respondent No. 4 relied on it owing to the

similarity in the facts, where a child was removed from a foreign

country by one parent and brought to India, despi te adverse

findings by the relevant Foreign Court. Ultimately, the child was

allowed to stay in India with the parent, regardless of the Foreign

Court’s contrary orders. The Appellant, however, relied on this case

owing to the primacy given to the doctrine of ‘best interests and

welfare of the child.’ Essentially, the parties have relied on this case

to highlight various aspects of the ‘best interest of a child’ principle,

as well as the primacy afforded to decisions of Foreign Courts.

31. In this vein, it is a settled position of law that the principle of comity

of courts and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must yield to

the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has

decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard.

7 Such cases

must be decided on the sole and predominant criterion of ‘what

6

Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454.

7 Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454, para 46.

46 | P a g e

would serve the interests and welfare’ of the minor.

8 The pre-

existing order of a Foreign Court is merely one of the circumstances

to consider when assessing the best interests and welfare of the

person concerned.

9 This doctrine was evolved to protect children

who may, unwittingly, become collateral damage in their parents’

legal disputes. It has gained significance over the past several

years, owing to the frequency and ease of migration.

32. To consider the interests of the child, the Court must take into

account all attending circumstances and the totality of the

situation. The Court must consider the welfare and happiness of

the child as the paramount consideration and go into all relevant

aspects of welfare including stability and security, loving and

understanding care and guidance, and full development of the

child's character, personality, and talents.

10 The Court has to give

due weightage to the child's ordinary contentment, health,

education, intellectual development, favourable surroundings, and

future prospects. Further, over and above physical comforts, moral

and ethical values also have to be taken note of, as they constitute

equal if not more important factors than the others.

11

8

Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42, para 8; Dhanwanti Joshi v.

Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112, para 21; Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka,

2022 SCC OnLine SC 937, para 8.

9

Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454, para 42.

10

V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174, para 29.

11 Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, para 50.

47 | P a g e

33. As per the Eligibility Reports and Evaluation Reports issued by his

school district, Aadith was receiving a specially-curated curriculum

to help him enhance his skills and pursue his education despite

his limitations. All the reports from the school district indicate that

he was happy attending classes, was excited about graduating high

school, and looked forward to working at a job. In fact, he had

already worked part-time in a hotel and in his paternal aunt’s

dental clinic, under the supervision of a job coach. He was making

plans for his future, which he expected to continue in the US. In

the 2022-2023 academic year, he was due to start a Transitional

Program to help him curate vocational and non-vocational training

skills, alongside his education. He was supposed to be part of this

Transitional Program from 18 years to 21 years of age, i.e. for three

years. His enrolment and participation in this program were

interrupted solely by his impromptu trip to India.

34. Though he may be content with his father in India, he reiterated to

the doctors at NIMHANS, Bengaluru that he wants to reside with

his brother, complete his living skill training, and start his own

business in the US. His brother, Arjun, has been diagnosed with

Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder. He is also

enrolled in a specially-curated curriculum for his education in the

US. As assessed by NIMHANS, Bengaluru, l ike his brother, he

48 | P a g e

possesses a ‘full-scale composite IQ score of 60, which

classifies him within the “very low range of cognitive ability.”’

Further ‘while he has the general cognitive functioning

equivalent to that of an 8 to 10 -year-old child, he has

considerable limitations in independently managing

financial, legal, social, and occupational matters without

substantial external support and oversig ht.’ The Idaho

Department of Health and Welfare prepared a Guardianship

Evaluation for Arjun, whereunder they recommended that the

Appellant be granted full guardianship.

35. Here is a case where Aadith, his parents, and his younger brother,

Arjun, have resided in the US for almost two decades and are all

US citizens. The sons were born and brought up in the US together,

owing to which they are accustomed to the culture, the activities,

the language, and the schooling there. As a natural corollary, they

know no other way of life and undeniably have their roots in the

US. Regardless of these commonalities, the brothers share certain

unique characteristics which perhaps help them understand, relate

to, and lean on each other. This emotional relationship, in our

considered opinion, is the foundational strength of their self-

confidence, sense of security and all other kinds of support, which

they are unlikely to receive elsewhere, outside of close family. If

49 | P a g e

separated by entire continents, we are confronted by the

unfortunate possibility that their bond may wither away with the

passage of time. It is necessary for them to retain their connection

as they grow up and grow old, to have a constant bonding through

the years. For these reasons, it is imperative that they stay

together.

36. In this light, it seems to us that regardless of the parents being

divorced, the entire family appears to have set up a comfortable life

for themselves in the US. Fortunately, neither of the parents is

facing any financial difficulties jeopardizing their lives there. Given

their established routine and support systems, we seriously doubt

whether it is in Aadith’s best interests to continue residing in India.

37. Aadith does not seem to have received much training or education

during his time in India. Besides attending a 3-month-long skill-

based vocational training course under the Department of Adult

Independent Living at the National Institute for Empowerment of

Persons with Multiple Disabilities, Chennai, he does not appear to

have obtained any long-term formal and supervised training or

education. Further, he has not taken up a part-time or full-time job

as he was able to in the US. Finally, other than Respondent Nos. 4

to 6, we have not been informed of any other family or

50 | P a g e

formal/informal support systems here that he interacts with

regularly or can depend upon. Regardless, the doctors at

NIMHANS, Bengaluru noted that he was struggling to understand

the language spoken in Chennai.

38. In comparison, he has completed most of his schooling in the US;

he has access to long-term specialized welfare services and

curriculums; he has a peer group; an established routine; and

places to regularly attend for socialization. Further, he is familiar

with the language and lifestyle in the US. He desires to be in the

company of his younger brother, from whom he has been separated

for far too long. Finally, owing to their citizenship, the Idaho Court

has already passed an order appointing the Appellant as Aadith’s

full and permanent guardian. Taking this into account, we cannot

state that Aadith has given up his roots in the US and has

developed new roots in India, due to which he should not be

displaced.

39. Considering all the facts and surrounding circumstances, we

believe it is in Aadith’s best interests and welfare to return to the

US, where he can complete his schooling and reside with his

younger brother, under the Appellant’s guardianship. We clarify

that this does not mean that Respondent No. 4 should not be a part

51 | P a g e

of his son’s life; rather, it is his duty to become part of the life his

son has already established in the US.

E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

40. This case, like all custody matters, has taken a toll on all those

involved. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the subject-

matter, it is imperative to put all the disputes to rest.

41. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and set

aside the Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 09.08.2024

with the following directions and conclusions:

i. Aadith Ramadorai is incapable of making independent

decisions as of now;

ii. Aadith Ramadorai’s interests would be best served by

continuing to reside in the US, alongside his younger brother,

Arjun Ramadorai, and under the guardianship of the

Appellant;

iii. From the date of pronouncement of this judgement, Aadith

Ramadorai shall be deemed to be under the sole custody of the

Appellant;

52 | P a g e

iv. Pursuantly, the Appellant is directed to return to the US with

both the sons within 15 days and ensure that they continue

their schooling there. Respondent No. 4 shall not cause any

impediment to their return;

v. Now that the controversy pertaining to the custody of Aadith

Ramadorai stands resolved, the office of US Consulate-

General, Chennai will return his US passport and facilitate the

Appellant in taking him back to the US immediately;

vi. The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 shall share their phone

numbers, email IDs, and home addresses with each other, so

that they can remain in contact for the sake of their children;

vii. Neither the Appellant nor Respondent No. 4 shall restrict the

sons’ access to the other parent; and

viii. Owing to substantial compliance with this Court’s subsequent

order dated 08.01.2025, the contempt proceedings are hereby

dropped.

42. The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.

43. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications if any, also stand

disposed of.

53 | P a g e

44. Before parting, we would like to seize this opportunity and place on

record our profound appreciation and gratitude for the team at

NIMHANS, Bengaluru, for accommodating our time-bound request

to assess Aadith and Arjun and aiding us in this exercise of

adjudicating this delicate and complicated dispute.

..............…….........J.

(SURYA KANT)

..............…….........J.

(DIPANKAR DATTA)

..............…….........J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 3, 2025.