Guardianship of Adults with Disabilities in Cross-Border Disputes: Lessons from Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay (2025)
The increasing mobility of families across borders has led to complex legal battles over the guardianship and custody of vulnerable adults with disabilities. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay & Ors. (2025 INSC 299), decided on March 3, 2025, addresses these challenges head-on.
This case involves a 22-year-old US citizen, Aadith Ramadorai, diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and mild intellectual disability. Legal Light Consulting presents this detailed analysis for educational purposes only, highlighting key principles on welfare, decision-making capacity, and international comity in guardianship matters.
This is not legal advice—contact Legal Light Consulting directly for personalized assistance in similar cases.
Case Background: A Transcontinental Guardianship Tug-of-War
Aadith Ramadorai, born in the USA to US citizen parents of Indian origin, has lived most of his life under shared custody arrangements following his parents’ 2007 divorce in Idaho, USA. The Idaho Court initially granted joint legal and physical custody, with detailed schedules: alternating weeks, equal holidays, and a clause prohibiting relocation without consent or court order (Clause 13 of the Supplemental Custody Order). No child support was ordered, and parents were barred from disparaging each other.
From birth to adulthood:
Early years: Lived with both parents in Boise, Idaho.
Post-separation (2005-2007): Limited time with father.
2007-2018: Weekdays with mother, weekends with father; homes close by.
2018-2021: Alternating weeks.
Up to 2019: Equal joint custody.
2019-2021: Mother gained legal custody; shared physical.
2021-2022: With mother while father visited India.
2022-2024: Lived independently with father in USA.
January 2024 onward: Brought to India by father.
Aadith followed an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), attending integrated schools with special support, completing high school and a diploma in 2022 (extended for skill training).
In late 2023, the father brought Aadith to India without the mother’s full consent, amid ongoing Idaho proceedings. The Idaho Court appointed the mother as temporary, then permanent, guardian in 2024.
The mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court, which dismissed it, finding no illegal detention based on Aadith’s expressed wish to stay in India. The Supreme Court, on appeal, reversed this.
Medical and Psychological Assessments: Capacity for Independent Decisions
Central to the case were evaluations of Aadith’s decision-making ability:
- IQ of 54, indicating mild intellectual disability (50% disability).
- Capable of simple tasks, traveling familiar places alone, and living with family support.
- Requires assistance for major decisions (e.g., property, finances).
- Comprehensive NIMHANS report (February 2025): Intellectual functioning equivalent to an 8-10-year-old child; can make basic personal choices but needs oversight for complex matters.
The Supreme Court prioritized expert medical opinions, holding that where disability limits capacity, an individual’s “consent” or preference cannot solely determine residence or guardianship—especially for life-altering moves.
Supreme Court’s Key Holdings: Welfare Over Everything
The bench invoked parens patriae jurisdiction to protect vulnerable persons, emphasizing:
Welfare Paramount: Totality of circumstances—education, support systems, emotional bonds, familial relationships—must guide decisions.
Limited Decision-Making Capacity: Aadith cannot make independent, legally binding choices on residence. Relying solely on his stated preference was erroneous.
Sibling Bond: Aadith’s “inseparable” relationship with his brother (also disabled) weighed heavily; separation would be detrimental.
Comity of Courts vs. Best Interests: Foreign orders (Idaho guardianship) deserve consideration but yield to the individual’s welfare. Pre-existing relocation restrictions were noted.
Repatriation Directed: Aadith to reside with mother and brother (initially in Bengaluru, with option to return to USA). Father to facilitate return, maintain contact; passport handover ordered.
The Court doubted India’s suitability long-term, given Aadith’s US upbringing, specialized education, and established supports.
Educational Insights: Broader Implications
This landmark ruling offers valuable lessons:
Expert Evidence Crucial: In disabilities cases, specialist reports on capacity trump subjective preferences.
Adult “Child” Custody: Principles of minor welfare extend to vulnerable adults lacking full capacity.
Cross-Border Challenges: Comity respects foreign orders but not at welfare’s expense; prevents unilateral relocations.
Sibling and Family Ties: Emotional bonds, especially among disabled siblings, are significant factors.
Habeas Corpus Scope: Not dismissed lightly based on expressed wishes if capacity impaired.
Policy Resonance: Aligns with Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing supported decision-making.
The judgment sets a precedent for sensitive handling of international guardianship disputes involving disabilities.
Client-Friendly FAQ: Guardianship and Return of Adults with Disabilities to the USA – Insights from Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay (2025)
Hello! At Legal Light Consulting, we know how heartbreaking and confusing it can be when family members fight over where a loved one with disabilities should live – especially across countries. This FAQ is based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay (2025), involving a 22-year-old son with cerebral palsy and intellectual disability. The Court decided he should return to the USA with his mother for his best interests.
We explain everything in simple words to help you understand. This is general educational information only – not legal advice for your case. Every situation is different. Please contact us for advice that fits your family.
1. What was this case about?
It was a fight between divorced parents over where their 22-year-old son, Aadith (who has cerebral palsy and mild intellectual disability), should live. He was brought to India by his father without full agreement. The mother wanted him back in the USA with her and his brother.
2. Why did the Court say Aadith should go back to the USA?
The Court looked at what was best for Aadith (his welfare). He grew up in the USA with special schools, friends, and routines. In India, he didn’t get much training or support, struggled with the language, and was separated from his brother. The USA offers better long-term care, education, and family ties.
3. Can an adult like Aadith (over 18) decide where to live on his own?
Not always. The doctors said Aadith has the thinking ability of an 8-10-year-old. He can make simple choices but needs help with big decisions (like where to live or money matters). The Court said his wishes matter, but his best interests come first – not just what he says.
4. Why was his brother so important in the decision?
Aadith and his younger brother are very close – like best friends. They both have disabilities. The Court said separating them would hurt Aadith emotionally. Living together in the USA with their mom was better for both.
5. What about the father? Does this mean he loses his son?
No! The Court said the father must stay in Aadith’s life. He can visit, call, video chat, and be part of decisions. But the main home and care should be in the USA with the mom as guardian.
6. The father brought Aadith to India without asking. Was that okay?
No. The USA court (Idaho) had rules saying neither parent could move the kids without permission or court okay. The Supreme Court respected this foreign order and said parents must follow such rules to avoid fights.
7. What did the Court order for Aadith’s return?
- Aadith goes back to USA with his mom and brother within 15 days.
- Father helps make it happen (no stopping them).
- Mom gets Aadith’s passport back.
- Both parents share contact info and let the kids talk to the other parent freely.
- Contempt (disobeying court) case dropped since everyone followed later orders.
8. Why didn’t the Court let Aadith stay in India with his father and grandparents?
India was comfortable short-term, but not best long-term. Aadith had no steady school or job training here, few friends, and language problems. USA has his roots: special education, routine, and support he needs as an adult with disabilities.
9. What if a parent ignores the Court’s order?
Courts take this seriously. They can drop contempt if fixed (like here), but repeated ignoring could lead to fines or other penalties. Always follow orders for the child’s sake.
10. What advice do you have if my family has a similar problem?
- Get medical reports on your loved one’s ability to decide.
- Focus on what’s truly best for them – school, family, support.
- Talk to both parents calmly; courts prefer cooperation.
- Act fast if someone takes your loved one abroad without agreement.
You’re not alone – we can help! Legal Light Consulting specializes in guardianship for adults with disabilities, cross-border family disputes, and enforcing foreign court orders. We guide you with kindness, explain options clearly, and fight for what’s best for your loved one.
Contact us today for a free initial chat or consultation. Visit our website or call us – let’s work together to protect your family and bring peace. Your loved one deserves a happy, supported life!
Conclusion: Prioritizing Dignity and Welfare in Vulnerable Cases
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay reaffirms that in guardianship battles—especially cross-border ones involving adults with disabilities—the individual’s best interests, informed by expert evidence, must prevail over parental claims or perceived consents.
This analysis serves educational purposes to illuminate evolving jurisprudence on disability rights and family law. If you are navigating guardianship for a vulnerable adult, cross-border custody issues, or related disputes—perhaps involving foreign orders, capacity assessments, or relocation—seek professional guidance promptly.
Contact Legal Light Consulting for expert support in family law, international disputes, guardianship petitions, and disability-related matters. Our team provides compassionate, strategic advice tailored to complex cases. Reach out via our website or phone for a confidential consultation today. Protecting vulnerable loved ones requires informed, timely action.
