Holding

Aadith, due to severe cognitive limitations equivalent to an 8‑10‑year‑old, cannot make independent decisions, and his best interests are served by returning to the United States under his mother’s guardianship.

Summary

The mother (appellant) and father (respondent No.4) of Aadith Ramadorai, a 22‑year‑old US citizen with ataxic cerebral palsy and severe cognitive limitations, disputed his custody after the father took him to India without the mother’s knowledge. The mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court, which dismissed the petition based on Aadith’s alleged consent to stay in India. The Supreme Court set aside that decision, ordering a comprehensive medical assessment at NIMHANS, which concluded that Aadith functions at the level of an 8‑10‑year‑old and cannot make independent, legally‑binding decisions. Applying the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court held that his best interests are served by returning to the United States to live with his mother and younger brother under her guardianship. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was overturned, and Aadith was placed under the sole custody of the mother with directions for his return to the US.

Issues considered

Whether Aadith is capable of making independent decisions?
Whether Aadith’s best interests and welfare would be served by permitting him to continue residing with his father in India?

Subjects

CustodyUS citizensAtaxic cerebral palsySevere cognitive limitationsCognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old childCapacity to make independent decisionsIndependent, legally-binding decisionsAlleged illegal detentionHabeas corpusBest interest and welfare of the childPermanent legal guardianshipPrinciple of comity of courtsExpert opinion/reportNIMHANS BengaluruEvaluation CommitteeJoint custodyCognitive capacityDoctrine of parens patriaeGuardianshipSevere disabilityAutism spectrum disorder

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 377 : 2025 INSC 299

Sharmila Velamur
v.
V. Sanjay and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2025)
03 March 2025
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether ‘A’ having severe cognitive limitations is capable of making
independent decisions; whether best interests and welfare of ‘A’, a
US citizen would be served by permitting him to continue residing
with Respondent No.4-father in India.

Headnotes†
Child and family welfare – Custody matter – Appellant-mother
and respondent no. 4-father are US citizens, divorced in US –
Appellant was granted permanent legal guardianship of their
elder son ‘A’ who suffers from Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, by the
US Court – However, while the guardianship proceedings
were pending, the Respondent No.4 brought A to India
without informing the Appellant – She filed writ of habeas
corpus in High Court alleging illegal detention of A – High
Court very briefly interacted with A and held that he was
consensually living with Respondent No.4 in India, dismissed
the petition – Supreme Court doubting the child's capacity to
make independent decisions, ordered a medical assessment
at NIMHANS, Bengaluru:
Held: NIMHANS, Bengaluru in its Comprehensive Assessment
Report held that owing to ‘A’ cognitive and physical limitations, he
does not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent
decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as
long-term residence – This is also concurred by the report of the
Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) –
Thus, as ‘A’ was assessed to possess the cognitive abilities of an
8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning assigned by the High Court,

* Author
378 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of him consenually living in India is seriously erroneous – ‘A’ cannot
make independent, legally-binding decisions on his own – High
Court erred in coming to a finding on ‘A’s alleged illegal detention
solely based on his perceived ‘independent’ decision to reside in
India with Respondent No. 4 – Impugned judgment set aside – ‘A’
to be under the sole custody of the Appellant – Further directions
issued. [Paras 21, 23, 41]

Expert Opinion – Expert’s report to be given due credence
unless strong reasons to disbelieve it – Parties are US citizens,
divorced in US – Appellant-mother was granted permanent legal
guardianship of their elder son ‘A’ (22 years old) with severe
cognitive limitations – Appellant filed writ of habeas corpus
in High Court alleging his illegal detention by the Respondent
No.4-father – High Court very briefly interacted with ‘A’ and
held that he was consensually living with his father in India,
dismissed the petition – It did not consider the report of the
Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities
Program) consisting of a Psychologist, a Physician and a
Social Worker, to decide whether ‘A’ was living consensually
in India:
Held: Even though Courts are well within their rights to come
to a finding distinct from an expert’s report, the expert’s opinion
cannot be discarded, as a whole without any reason – The dispute
before the High Court concerned the sensitive and complex issue
of alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive
limitations, it ought to have considered and given due credence
to the Evaluation Committee’s report which had held that ‘A’ does
not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent
decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as
long-term residence – 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 – 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 379

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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. [Paras 20, 22]

Child and family welfare – Custody matters – Child’s best
interest and welfare – Determination – Doctrine of parens
patriae – Parties are US citizens – Issue of custody of their
elder son ‘A’ suffering from Ataxic Cerebral Palsy – Whether
A’s best interests and welfare would be served by permitting
him to continue residing with Respondent No.4-father in India:
Held: ‘A’, his parents and his younger brother, have resided in the
US for two decades and are all US citizens – Having been born
and brought up in the US, they are accustomed to the culture,
the activities, the language and the schooling there – They know
no other way of life and have their roots in the US – Regardless
of these commonalities, the brothers share certain unique
characteristics which helps them understand, relate to, and lean
on each other – Also, A 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 – He is familiar
with the language and lifestyle in the US – Also, ‘A’ desires to
be in the company of his younger brother, from whom he has
been separated for far too long – It cannot be said that ‘A’ has
given up his roots in the US and has developed new roots in
India, due to which he should not be displaced – In the facts and
surrounding circumstances, it is in A’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.
[Paras 35, 38, 39]

Child and family welfare – Custody of child – Best interest of
child – Comity of courts – Principle of:
Held: 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
380 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

enquiry in this regard – Court to take into account all the attending
circumstances and the totality of the situation to consider the
interests of the child. [Paras 31, 32]

Case Law Cited
Girish v. Radhamony K. (2009) 16 SCC 360; Suchita Srivastava
v. Chandigarh Admn. [2009] 13 SCR 989 : (2009) 9 SCC 1 –
distinguished.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. [2018] 4 SCR 955 : (2018) 16 SCC
368; Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das [2019] 9 SCR 212 : (2019) 7 SCC
490; Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh [2017] 2 SCR 312 : (2017) 3
SCC 231; Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2017]
7 SCR 281 : (2017) 8 SCC 454; Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M.
Dinshaw [1987] 1 SCR 175 : (1987) 1 SCC 42; Dhanwanti Joshi
v. Madhav Unde [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 30 : (1998) 1 SCC 112;
Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka [2022] 4 SCR
784 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937; V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v.
Union of India [2009] 13 SCR 1022 : (2010) 1 SCC 174; Gaurav
Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal [2008] 16 SCR 396 : (2009) 1 SCC
42 – referred to.

List of Keywords
Custody; US citizens; Ataxic cerebral palsy; Severe cognitive
limitations; Cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child; Capacity to
make independent decisions; Independent, legally-binding decisions;
Alleged illegal detention; Habeas corpus; Best interest and welfare
of the child; Permanent legal guardianship; Principle of comity of
courts; Expert opinion/report; NIMHANS Bengaluru; Evaluation
Committee; Joint custody; Cognitive capacity; Doctrine of parens
patriae; Guardianship; Severe disability; Autism spectrum disorder.

Case Arising From
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction/Inherent Jurisdiction: Criminal Appeal
No. 1037 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in HCP No. 886 of 2024
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 9 of 2025
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 381

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ashim Sood, Mayank Pandey, Anish Gopi,
Velpula Audityaa, Ms. Bhavya Pandey, Ekansh Gupta, Ashish
Kumar Pandey, Nirmal Prasad, Ribhav Pande, Arun.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv., Aakash Nandolia, Sabarish Subramanian,
Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., Sachin Dubey, Dheeraj Nair, Akhil Anand,
Ms. Ridhima Sharma.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

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
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,
382 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
3.3 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.”
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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 383

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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.
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 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.
384 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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
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 paternal 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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 385

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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 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.
386 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

On Respondent No. 4’s request, Aadith was examined and an
Observation Report was prepared, which recorded as follows:
“Mr. Aadith Rajson Ramadorai 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.
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
Appellant in Bengaluru ever since. In continued compliance
with the above order, Aadith and his brother were brought to
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 387

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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 ADAPTIVE 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 current 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 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
388 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 389

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IVINDIA Edition
(WAIS-4INDIA)
On WAIS-4INDIA, 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-4INDIA, 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 spontaneously, did not view
that the others have their own thoughts/beliefs
independent of himself.
390 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 391

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

he has difficulty exercising discretion and
judgment in 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
392 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 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 when instructed,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 393

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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.
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
394 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.

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).
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 395

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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.
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,
396 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.”
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 397

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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 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,
398 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 occupation 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.
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 399

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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.
• The mother reports that the client has difficulties
performing specific tasks and may require assistance
with decision-making, necessitating guardianship.
400 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

• 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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 401

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

• 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.”
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. These
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.
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.
402 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 functional 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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 403

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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.
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
404 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 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 findings, 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 concerning
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
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 405

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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 Federal 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.
(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 and 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.
(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
406 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 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:
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 407

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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-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
408 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
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; (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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 409

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

simple sentences, but struggles to utilize and comprehend complex
sentences. The report concluded that his speech and language
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. 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%.
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
410 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 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 combination 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 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,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 411

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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 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.
21. For this purpose, we must rely on the reports produced by
NIMHANS, Bengaluru and the Evaluation Committee. At the risk
412 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
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

1 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, para 45.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 413

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

contended that Aadith would be subject to ‘Parental Alienation
Syndrome’ if allowed to stay long-term with Respondent No. 4. For
this, the Appellant has relied on Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das2 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.
28. The judgement in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (supra)
pertained to terminating the pregnancy of a woman 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

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.
414 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 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, despite 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 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,

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.
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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 415

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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
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

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.
416 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

specially-curated curriculum for his education in the US. As assessed
by NIMHANS, Bengaluru, like his brother, he 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 oversight.’ 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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 417

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

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 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 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;
418 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

iii. From the date of pronouncement of this judgement, Aadith
Ramadorai shall be deemed to be under the sole custody of
the Appellant;
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.
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.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey