The order decides only the habeas corpus petition. It does not finally adjudicate custody, which the mother may pursue through other proceedings; it makes no finding on her allegations that the custody agreement was signed under coercion or that the father misrepresented an earlier relationship. Quotations from earlier judgments carry those judgments' own paragraph numbers.
- Case
- Nenelle Beronilla Dayandayan v. Mrutunjaya Kar
- Court
- High Court of Orissa
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:OHC:289-DB
- Bench
- Harish Tandon; Chittaranjan Dash
- Judgment by
- Harish Tandon
- Case numbers
- WPCRL No. 16 of 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition disposed of: custody prayer refused; daily video-call interaction and funded visits in India directed. No final custody adjudication was made.
Custody refused; daily video calls and funded visits ordered instead
The Orissa High Court has refused to hand over a two-year-old girl to her mother, a Philippine citizen working as a kindergarten teacher in Hanoi, holding that the child's welfare — not the rights of either parent — decides a habeas corpus plea for custody. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash left the child with her paternal grandparents at Jajpur in Odisha, where she has lived since a few months after her birth.
The court, deciding the writ petition on 10 November 2026, directed instead that the mother be allowed to speak to the child every day on a video call, and that when she visits India she be given time — including exclusive time — with her daughter, with the father paying for her air tickets and stay in Odisha.
The family: a child born in Bengaluru, living with her grandparents
The mother, Nenelle Beronilla Dayandayan, is a Philippine citizen living and working in Hanoi, Vietnam. She was in a relationship with the child's father, Mrutunjaya Kar; their daughter was born on 26 November 2023 in Bengaluru, and the birth certificate names Kar as the father and Dayandayan as the biological mother. The child is an Indian citizen, and a passport was issued to her on 1 January 2026.
Dayandayan said that after the relationship broke down she was not allowed to meet the child, even on video calls, and that when she did see her on video calls arranged with the help of neighbours, the child did not appear to be properly cared for by Kar's parents. She said her visa was not extended and she had to return to the Philippines, while Kar put the child in his parents' custody at Jajpur and travelled frequently to Singapore and other countries. She also alleged that Kar had misrepresented an earlier relationship and a child from it.
- High Court of Orissa: Nenelle Beronilla Dayandayan v. Mrutunjaya Kar, WPCRL No. 16 of 2026, 10 November 2026 (official judgment, 2026:OHC:289-DB, eCourts eSCR — search 'habeas corpus Philippines')Judgment, paras 2-4 (mother, child, birth, citizenship, visa, Jajpur)
The father's case: a settled home, a written agreement, no carer abroad
Kar, who is employed with Lumen Technologies in Singapore as a Principal Technology Architect for cyber-security in the Asia-Pacific region, said he visited his parental home frequently and looked after the child, who was going to kindergarten and was well cared for. He said the parties had agreed in writing that custody would remain with him, and produced WhatsApp chats in which, he said, the mother herself agreed the child should remain with the grandparents.
He also pointed out that the mother had children from an earlier marriage living in the Philippines, and that she worked in Vietnam on a work visa with nobody to look after the child while she was at work. The mother did not deny the custody agreement in her rejoinder, but said it had been signed under coercion.
The law: habeas corpus is maintainable, and welfare is paramount
The court first held that a habeas corpus petition for a child's custody is maintainable even though the child is with a parent and the custody cannot be called illegal. The Supreme Court has held, in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, that there is no fetter on invoking the writ jurisdiction for the best interest of a child, and in Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) that the High Court may direct the return of a child or decline to change custody, keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances, with the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
The court also drew on Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh — which held that the writ jurisdiction in child-custody cases is inherent, resting on the court's powers as parens patriae — and Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi (2025 INSC 159), which held there is no hard-and-fast rule on maintainability. The consistent thread, the court said, is that the court must not be swayed by the fact that one parent is the natural guardian: the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, which cannot be reduced to a straitjacket formula.
Applying the test: a settled child, and a mother with no carer abroad
Applying that test, the court found the balance against moving the child. She has lived with her grandparents since a few months after her birth, is happy — the photographs annexed to the petition showed no sign of psychological difficulty — and uprooting her from a settled position could have a cascading effect on her. The mother, a Philippine citizen working in Vietnam, would have nobody to look after the child during her working hours, and the court noted that the child, an Indian citizen, would not be best served by being taken to another country. In Indian society, the court observed, grandparents play a very important role in a child's overall development.
At the same time, the court said it could not overlook the mother's right to visit and interact with her child: it is inconceivable that she would be denied of such valuable right. The court therefore refused the custody prayer but protected the mother's access.
BANTHRY ANALYSISThe directions, and for law students
The court directed the opposite parties to let the mother interact with the child every day on a video call, fitted around the child's daily routine and sleep, and to let her spend time with the child whenever she visits India — including exclusive time with her daughter — handing the child back to the grandparents before she returns to Vietnam or the Philippines. Kar must provide her air tickets and stay in Odisha and all other facilities needed for a smooth visit. With those directions, the petition was disposed of.
For law students, the case separates two questions that are often confused. Habeas corpus in a custody case asks whether the child's custody is lawful and what serves her welfare now; it does not finally decide who should have custody in the long term. That is why the court could refuse the mother's prayer while still ordering daily contact and funded visits — and why, as the Supreme Court noted in Nithya Anand Raghavan, the mother remains free to pursue custody through other proceedings.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The child was with her grandparents, not in unlawful custody. Why could the High Court still entertain the mother's habeas corpus petition?
- What facts led the court to conclude that moving the child to her mother in Vietnam would not serve the child's welfare?
- The court refused custody but ordered daily video calls and funded visits. What does that combination show about what a habeas corpus petition decides — and what it does not?
