ADITYA BAKAYA Sahil Lavande vs STATE OF GOA THR STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) AND 2 ORS — WPCR/141/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,21. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM050001102026

e-Filing Number

08-01-2026

Filing Number

WPCR/35/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

WPCR/141/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

Bench Type

Division

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

Habeas Corpus ( 101 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL SECTION

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,21

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ADITYA BAKAYA Sahil Lavande

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GOA THR STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) AND 2 ORS

  2. 2.ANJALI ACHARYA

  3. 3.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

    Summary: WPCR/141/2026 - Aditya Bakaya v. State of Goa & Others Court Decision The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father seeking repatriation of his 3-year-old daughter from India to the USA. The court held that the child's welfare is best served by remaining with her biological mother in India, rejecting the father's claim of child abduction and his reliance on a US court order. Key Reasoning The court found the father's petition fundamentally flawed due to material suppressions of facts: (1) he misrepresented that the marriage was only celebrated in the US, concealing a Goa registration creating Portuguese Civil Code jurisdiction; (2) he suppressed that the mother's travel to India was pre-planned with his initial consent; and (3) he omitted that the child is still breastfed—crucial given his argument centered on the child's welfare. The court rejected the "comity of courts" principle as the sole basis for repatriation, emphasizing instead that a breastfed toddler with her biological mother serves the child's paramount interest, regardless of a foreign court's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Pronouncement Of Judgement/Order

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    For Admission - Part Heard

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    For Admission - After Notice (High On Board)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  10. 02-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

  11. 02-Feb-2026

    For Admission - First On Board

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  12. 14-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

  13. 14-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCR/141/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: WPCR/141/2026 - Aditya Bakaya v. State of Goa & Others Court Decision The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father seeking repatriation of his 3-year-old daughter from India to the USA. The court held that the child's welfare is best served by remaining with her biological mother in India, rejecting the father's claim of child abduction and his reliance on a US court order. Key Reasoning The court found the father's petition fundamentally flawed due to material suppressions of facts: (1) he misrepresented that the marriage was only celebrated in the US, concealing a Goa registration creating Portuguese Civil Code jurisdiction; (2) he suppressed that the mother's travel to India was pre-planned with his initial consent; and (3) he omitted that the child is still breastfed—crucial given his argument centered on the child's welfare. The court rejected the "comity of courts" principle as the sole basis for repatriation, emphasizing instead that a breastfed toddler with her biological mother serves the child's paramount interest, regardless of a foreign court's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case