International custody battle involving Aadith Ramadorai: Sharmila Velamur v V. Sanjay

Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay & Ors. (2025 INSC 299), examined a high-stakes international custody battle involving Aadith Ramadorai, a US citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy. The case primarily revolved around Aadith’s legal guardianship and his best interests under the doctrine of parens patriae. The judgment provides critical insight into cross-border parental disputes and the legal competence of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Factual Background:

The dispute arose between the appellant, Sharmila Velamur (Aadith’s mother), and respondent V. Sanjay (Aadith’s father), both US citizens. The couple had divorced in 2007 under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Court, which granted them joint custody of their two sons, Aadith and Arjun, both diagnosed with developmental disabilities.

Aadith had been residing with his father, Sanjay, in the US until he was brought to India without his mother’s knowledge in December 2023. The Idaho Court had granted Sharmila full and permanent guardianship over Aadith in April 2024. Sharmila filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Madras High Court, which ruled that Aadith was not under illegal detention as he expressed his desire to stay with his father in India. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Aadith’s Capacity for Independent Decision-Making: Was Aadith legally competent to make independent decisions regarding his residence?
2. Best Interests and Welfare of Aadith: Would his best interests be served by staying in India with his father, or should he be repatriated to the US?
3. Recognition of Foreign Court Orders: Should the Supreme Court have given deference to the Idaho Court’s decision granting full guardianship to Sharmila?

Arguments Presented

Arguments by the Appellant (Sharmila Velamur)

• The Madras High Court failed to consider medical evidence demonstrating Aadith’s intellectual disabilities.
• Aadith was unable to make legally binding decisions, as confirmed by multiple medical reports, including those from NIMHANS, Bengaluru.
• The US legal system had already adjudicated the matter, granting her full guardianship, which should have been recognized under the comity of courts principle.
• Aadith’s welfare was best served in the US, where he had access to specialized healthcare, education, and social security benefits.

Arguments by the Respondent (V. Sanjay)

• Aadith was mentally fit to make independent decisions, and he had voluntarily chosen to stay with his father in India.
• The Madras High Court correctly determined that Aadith was not under illegal detention.
• The medical evaluation conducted in India (Institute of Mental Health, Chennai) showed Aadith had mild intellectual disability, meaning he could make his own choices with limited support.
• Transferring Aadith to the US would cause emotional distress and disrupt his stable environment in India.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision

1. Aadith’s Capacity for Independent Decision-Making

The Court relied heavily on the NIMHANS medical evaluation, which concluded that Aadith had the cognitive abilities of an 8-to-10-year-old child. The Court noted:

• He struggled with basic arithmetic and financial decision-making.
• He was unable to navigate social situations safely.
• He required constant supervision for major life decisions.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court held that Aadith lacked the legal competence to make independent decisions regarding his residence.

2. Best Interests and Welfare of Aadith

Applying the parens patriae principle, the Court ruled that Aadith’s best interests were best served by repatriation to the US. Key considerations included:

• Access to Specialized Care: Aadith was eligible for extensive disability benefits, medical coverage, and vocational training in the US.
• Educational Opportunities: His schooling in the US was tailored to his needs, with specialized support systems that were absent in India.
• Emotional Stability: The Court considered the importance of Aadith’s bond with his younger brother, Arjun, who was already residing with their mother in the US.

3. Recognition of the Idaho Court’s Guardianship Order

While acknowledging the principle of comity of courts, the Supreme Court clarified that foreign judgments must align with Indian laws and the welfare of the individual involved. The Court held that the Idaho Court’s decision was well-reasoned and had considered Aadith’s best interests. Therefore, it deserved deference.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court quashed the Madras High Court’s judgment and directed Aadith’s repatriation to the US under his mother’s guardianship. The Court also ordered that Sanjay be granted liberal visitation rights.

Case Law Analysis The Court relied on several precedents:

• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368: Emphasized the importance of a person’s autonomy in deciding their future, except in cases where mental incapacity is evident.
• Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw (1987) 1 SCC 42: Held that a child’s welfare must be the paramount consideration in custody battles, even when international jurisdiction is involved.
• Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 8 SCC 454: Clarified that foreign court orders do not automatically override the best interests of the child.
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1: Recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities but emphasized the need for external support in decision-making.

Conclusion:

This judgment is a landmark ruling on international child custody disputes and the rights of individuals with intellectual disabilities. It reaffirms that:

• Mental capacity assessments are crucial in determining an individual’s ability to make legally binding decisions.
• The parens patriae doctrine is central to cases involving vulnerable individuals.
• While foreign court decisions deserve respect, they must align with Indian legal principles and the individual’s best interests.

By prioritizing Aadith’s welfare and directing his repatriation to the US, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need for judicial sensitivity in such cases. This ruling will serve as a guiding precedent in future cross-border custody disputes involving persons with disabilities.

References

1. Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay & Ors., 2025 INSC 299.
2. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368.
3. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42.
4. Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454.
5. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1.