Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 11-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Helena Anna Maria Lersch (German citizen, Vice President – Public Policy, TikTok Singapore) versus the child’s father, a practising lawyer and partner at PLR Chambers, Delhi. The child was born on 15‑07‑2022 and is presently about four years and one month old.
  • Procedural History: The mother filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa Bench in February 2026 seeking access to the child; the father filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Judge, South 24‑Parganas, Alipore in April 2026 seeking custody. The present matter is a Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) No. 11625/2026 before this Court.
  • Dispute: The mother wishes the child to reside in Singapore for schooling and to be raised there, while the father contends that the child’s habitual residence is India and that his welfare will be best served there. Both parents have been observed to be doting, and the child shows no aversion to either parent.
  • Observations: The child has lived intermittently in India, Singapore and Germany; no joint‑custody agreement exists. The court notes that whichever parent is granted primary residence, the other will experience substantial periods of separation.

Final Outcome

1. The Court directs the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, to constitute a panel of child‑psychology experts to evaluate the comparative psychological impact of the two possible custody arrangements (India with father vs. Singapore with mother) and to submit a sealed report within 2–3 weeks, with a possible extension upon request.

2. Both parents must submit a written synopsis of their respective cases (maximum three pages/2000 words) to the NIMHANS Board within two days of this order.

3. Each parent shall deposit Rs 2 lakhs with the Court Registry within two days to cover NIMHANS fees and related expenses; any additional costs will be reimbursed from these deposits.

4. Interim custody of the child shall remain with the mother while she is in India. The father shall be granted reasonable and meaningful access, including video‑conferencing and periodic visits. When the mother is absent from India, interim custody shall revert to the father until the mother returns.

5. The mother’s passport is to be returned to enable travel; the child’s passport shall remain with the Court Registry. The earlier interim direction restraining removal of the child from the country without Court leave remains in force, subject to today’s modifications.

6. The guardianship petition (Act VIII Case No. 69 of 2026, R‑69) pending before the District Judge, South 24‑Parganas, Alipore, shall be transferred to an appropriate Delhi High Court. The Alipore Court is directed to forward the records promptly to the Chief Justice of Delhi for allocation.

7. The matter is listed for a further hearing on 14‑08‑2026 at 2:00 p.m. to review steps taken; parties need not appear in person unless they wish.

8. The Court expresses appreciation to Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, and supporting staff for assistance in engaging NIMHANS and arranging a German‑speaking interpreter.

Topics: Custody, Child Welfare, Court Proceedings