Supreme Court of India on Custody of an Adult Child with Intellectual Disability

Cross-Border Guardianship, Disability, and Habeas Corpus:

The Supreme Court of India, in Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay & Ors. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17281/2024, decided on 3 March 2025), examined a complex and sensitive dispute involving cross-border parental conflict, guardianship of an adult with intellectual disability, and the limits of habeas corpus jurisdiction.

Supreme Court of India on Custody of an Adult Child with Intellectual Disability

Educational Article for Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay & Ors. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17281/2024, decided on 3 March 2025), examined a complex and sensitive dispute involving cross-border parental conflict, guardianship of an adult with intellectual disability, and the limits of habeas corpus jurisdiction.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Surya Kant for a Bench also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, is significant for lawyers, judges, and students as it clarifies how Indian courts must approach custody and guardianship disputes involving foreign citizens, foreign court orders, and persons with cognitive disabilities.

Factual Background in Brief

• The dispute concerned Aadith Ramadorai, a 22-year-old US citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and mild intellectual disability (IQ 54).

• His parents, both US citizens, were divorced by a court in Idaho, USA in 2007, with joint custody of their two children.

• Aadith attained majority but continued to require assistance due to developmental disability.

• In 2022–2023, the mother (Appellant) sought guardianship before the Idaho Court.

• During the pendency of proceedings, the father (Respondent No. 4) removed Aadith from the USA to India without disclosure, violating interim arrangements.

• The Idaho Court ultimately appointed the mother as full and permanent guardian and directed Aadith’s return to the USA.

• When Aadith could not be traced, the mother approached the Madras High Court through a habeas corpus petition, which was dismissed on the ground that Aadith appeared willing and capable of staying with his father in Chennai.

• The matter reached the Supreme Court, along with a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with interim directions of the Court.

Core Legal Issues

1. Whether habeas corpus is maintainable for an adult with intellectual disability

2. Whether Indian courts must respect foreign guardianship orders

3. How to assess “free will” and consent of a person with intellectual disability

4. Whether removal of an adult dependent across borders amounts to illegal detention

5. Interaction between contempt jurisdiction and child/adult custody disputes

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

1. Majority Does Not End the Court’s Protective Role

The Court clarified that attaining majority does not automatically negate the need for guardianship when the person suffers from intellectual or developmental disability. Legal capacity must be assessed functionally, not mechanically.

A person may be chronologically adult but legally vulnerable.

2. Consent of a Person with Intellectual Disability Requires Caution

While Aadith responded coherently to questions before the High Court, the Supreme Court emphasized that mere verbal responses cannot conclusively establish free and informed consent when psychometric assessments indicate intellectual disability.

Courts must:

• Consider medical evidence,

• Examine degree of dependency, and

• Guard against undue influence or parental control.

3. Foreign Guardianship Orders Deserve Respect

The Supreme Court reiterated principles of comity of courts. Where:

• The individual is a foreign citizen,

• Guardianship proceedings were lawfully conducted abroad, and

• Orders were passed after expert evaluation,

Indian courts should not lightly disregard such decrees unless they are shown to be:

• Oppressive,

• Fraudulent, or

• Contrary to fundamental Indian public policy.

4. Habeas Corpus Is Maintainable in Exceptional Cases

The Court clarified that habeas corpus is not limited to minors. It is maintainable where:

• An adult is incapable of making independent choices, and

• There is wrongful restraint or exploitation, even by close relatives.

Thus, “illegal detention” is not confined to physical force—it includes coercive control over a vulnerable adult.

5. Non-Compliance with Court Orders Has Serious Consequences

The Court took note of allegations that:

• Interim directions permitting video calls were not followed, and

• Temporary custody was refused despite express orders.

This justified invocation of contempt jurisdiction, reinforcing that custody disputes cannot be fought by defying court authority.

Educational Significance for Legal Professionals

This judgment is a crucial study for:

• Family law practitioners handling cross-border custody and guardianship

• Criminal and constitutional lawyers dealing with habeas corpus

• NRI and immigration law specialists

• Judges and mediators addressing disability rights

It bridges:

• Family law and constitutional remedies

• Domestic law and private international law

• Disability jurisprudence and human rights

Legal  Takeaways

• Disability transforms the legal analysis of consent, custody, and autonomy

• Foreign court orders in guardianship matters carry persuasive authority

• Habeas corpus is a flexible constitutional remedy, not restricted by age

• Parental rights are subordinate to the welfare and dignity of a vulnerable adult

• Court orders must be complied with, irrespective of emotional or familial disputes

Notes

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay underscores a humane and rights-based approach to guardianship disputes involving persons with intellectual disabilities. It reaffirms that law must protect vulnerability, not merely enforce technical adulthood, and that cross-border parental conflicts cannot override judicially determined welfare.

For legal education and practice, this judgment stands as a guiding precedent on disability-sensitive adjudication and international family law cooperation.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and academic purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

FAQs on Supreme Court Custody, Guardianship & Transfer Petitions

(Educational Resource by Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer)

PART I

Understanding the Supreme Court Custody & Guardianship Ruling

1. What was the Supreme Court’s final decision in this custody case?

The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment and held that:

• Aadith Ramadorai is currently incapable of making independent decisions due to intellectual disability.

• His best interests lie in residing in the United States under the sole guardianship of his mother.

• The father cannot obstruct Aadith’s return to the US.

• The dispute stands finally resolved, and contempt proceedings were dropped due to compliance.

2. Can an adult be placed under guardianship by the court?

Yes. The Supreme Court clarified that legal majority does not negate guardianship when a person:

• Suffers from intellectual or developmental disability, and

• Is unable to take independent, informed decisions.

Guardianship depends on capacity, not age alone.

3. Can habeas corpus be used for adult custody matters?

Yes, in exceptional circumstances. Habeas corpus is maintainable when:

• The adult is vulnerable or dependent, and

• There is wrongful restraint, coercive control, or misuse of dominance, even by family members.

4. How important is “best interest of the person” in custody cases?

It is the paramount consideration, overriding:

• Parental preferences

• Geographical convenience

• Emotional arguments

The Court prioritised:

• Medical care

• Continuity of education

• Emotional stability

• Presence of siblings

5. Are foreign guardianship and custody orders recognised in India?

Yes. Indian courts follow the doctrine of comity of courts and generally respect:

• Lawfully passed foreign court orders

• Especially when the person concerned is a foreign citizen

• Unless the order violates Indian public policy or natural justice

6. Can courts rely solely on what a person says in court?

No. The Supreme Court cautioned that:

• Verbal responses alone are insufficient where intellectual disability exists

• Courts must rely on medical, psychological, and expert evaluations

This is why the Court appreciated NIMHANS Bengaluru for its expert assessment.

PART II

Supreme Court Transfer Petitions – Common Questions

7. What is a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court?

A Transfer Petition seeks transfer of a case:

• From one High Court or Family Court to another

• Filed directly before the Supreme Court of India

• Governed primarily by Section 25 of the CPC

8. When can matrimonial cases be transferred by the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court allows transfer when:

• One spouse faces hardship or safety concerns

• The petitioner is a woman, NRI, or dependent parent

• Multiple cases are pending in different states

• There is threat, coercion, or misuse of criminal law

9. Can NRIs file transfer petitions in the Supreme Court?

Yes. NRIs frequently approach the Supreme Court for:

• Transfer of divorce cases

• Transfer of 498A / Domestic Violence cases

• Custody and maintenance proceedings

• Consolidation of multiple litigations

10. What is the procedure to file a transfer petition in the Supreme Court?

Broad steps include:

1. Drafting the Transfer Petition under Section 25 CPC

2. Filing through Advocate-on-Record (AOR)

3. Mentioning hardship, distance, safety, and inconvenience

4. Serving notice to the opposite party

5. Hearing and final transfer order

Online filing is now available through the Supreme Court e-filing portal.

11. How long does a Supreme Court transfer petition take?

Typically:

• 2–6 weeks for admission

• Urgent cases (custody, arrest risk) may be listed faster

• Final disposal depends on compliance and opposition

12. What is the cost of filing a transfer petition in the Supreme Court?

Costs depend on:

• Complexity of facts

• NRI documentation

• Urgency and interim relief sought

Legal Light Consulting provides transparent fee structures after consultation.

PART III

Divorce & Article 142 – Supreme Court Powers

13. What is divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution?

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to:

• Grant complete justice

• Dissolve marriages even when statutory requirements are not fully met

• Recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage

14. What is “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”?

It refers to a situation where:

• The marriage has broken down beyond repair

• Parties have lived separately for years

• Litigation has caused mental cruelty

• No possibility of reconciliation remains

15. Can NRIs seek divorce under Article 142?

Yes. NRIs often approach the Supreme Court for:

• One-time final divorce

• Avoiding prolonged litigation across countries

• Resolving custody, alimony, and maintenance comprehensively

PART IV

NRI Matrimonial, Custody & Criminal Disputes

16. Can the Supreme Court handle NRI custody disputes?

Yes. The Supreme Court regularly decides:

• Cross-border custody disputes

• Guardianship of children and dependent adults

• Passport and travel restrictions

• Return of children to foreign jurisdictions

17. Can NRIs seek protection from arrest in 498A cases?

Yes. The Supreme Court can grant:

• Interim protection

• Stay on coercive steps

• Transfer of criminal proceedings

• Quashing of false FIRs in appropriate cases

18. Can alimony and maintenance disputes be transferred?

Yes. Maintenance, custody, and alimony cases are frequently transferred to:

• Ensure convenience

• Prevent harassment

• Enable consolidated adjudication

PART V

Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer

19. Why choose Legal Light Consulting for Supreme Court matters?

Legal Light Consulting offers:

• Dedicated Supreme Court practice

• Expertise in transfer petitions, NRI divorces, custody disputes

• Strategic handling of Article 142 cases

• Ethical, transparent, and client-focused approach

20. Does Legal Light Consulting handle NRI cases globally?

Yes. We regularly assist NRIs from:

• USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Europe, and Middle East

• In divorce, custody, alimony, 498A, DV, and transfer petitions

21. How can I consult Legal Light Consulting?

📞 Phone: +91 99996 41341
📧 Email: legallightconsulting@gmail.com
📅 Consultation: Available by prior appointment (India & Overseas)

Disclaimer

This FAQ is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Each case depends on its own facts and legal position. For advice tailored to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.

Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer
Trusted Supreme Court Practice for Matrimonial, NRI & Transfer Petition Matters