According to the plea, the woman's ex-husband disobeyed a court order issued in the Netherlands, which had awarded her custody of the child. Allegedly, the man transported the child from the Netherlands to India in August 2023 and declined to hand the child over to the woman. Subsequently, he filed a petition in the family court in Mumbai seeking permanent custody of the child.

The man asserted that he and his daughter experienced racial discrimination, resulting in the child developing fear and reluctance to return to the Netherlands

The high court observed that the man's assertion of racial discrimination was merely an attempt to undermine the rulings of the Dutch court, describing it as a "purely concocted" excuse.

The bench instructed the man to surrender custody of the child to her mother, facilitating her return to the Netherlands

The court emphasized that denying the child's return to her mother in the Netherlands could potentially lead to the child developing negative feelings towards her mother, possibly due to influence or manipulation, and even believing falsely that her mother had abandoned her.

In her plea, the woman stated that the child has resided with her in the Netherlands since birth and is also a Dutch national by birth. The bench emphasized in its order that the paramount concern in such situations should be the well-being and welfare of the child. It stressed that the perspective of just one parent cannot be solely considered when making such decisions.

"The court should decide the issue of custody only on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child," the HC said.

The bench noted that the child in the present case was born in the Netherlands and has been living there with her mother till she was brought to India by her father last year.

"There is great physical, mental and emotional bonding between the mother and child. Both need each other's company. This is very important for a girl child of the tender age of five years," the HC said.

The court mentioned that the child has been in India for a relatively short period, having arrived only in August of the previous year, and therefore has not established strong ties to India.

The bench concluded that the man had breached the order issued by the Dutch court by unlawfully detaining the child with him. Consequently, the court asserted, "Therefore, the child deserves to return to her country."

The high court said the man and the woman shall abide by the order passed by the Dutch court with regard to visitation rights.