Supreme Court applied “mirror order” in Transnational Child Custody Case

The Supreme Court observed that a contract is void if prohibited by a statute under a penalty, even without express declaration that the contract is void

In a case about transnational custody of a child, the Supreme Court applied a “mirror order” concept. A mirror order is one where the court allows a child to shift to a foreign nation, a specific condition may be relayed on the parent adopting the child in the foreign jurisdiction to attain a similar order granting the custody of a child from a court there, that is fit to pass such an order.

A three-judge bench of Hon’ble Justices UU Lalit, Hemant Gupta and Indu Malhotra by 2:1 majority decided to apply the concept of mirror order and grant custody of the child to his father located in Kenya. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented the judgement and was in favour of the mother remaining with the custody of the child. The Court added that the father was entitled to the custody of his son, that too a permanent custody. However, a condition was imposed by the Court demanding the father to attain a mirror order.

Such orders are given in cases where a child transits from one jurisdiction to other. The idea is to ensure the welfare of the child.

The father, after obtaining a mirror order, has to deposit Rs. 1 Crore in the registry of the Supreme Court for a period of two years to make sure of the compliance of the Supreme Court’s Judgement.