Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In the case where a Russian woman has fled the country with her child, despite pendency of a custody battle with her Indian husband, the Supreme Court recently observed that in terms of the Treaty entered by it, Russia has obligation to legally assist India in its criminal investigation.

The Court urged the Ministry of External Affairs to make a fresh request to the Russian authorities for assistance, despite their initial failure to help.

"In terms of the obligations contained in the Treaty, we direct MEA to submit a fresh request to Embassy of Russian Federation alongwith copy of FIR and other relevant documents to impress upon the requested party to provide the requisite assistance in terms of the mutual obligations. In addition, ld. ASG is requested to contact the Indian embassy in Russia and to see that the Indian embassy uses its diplomatic channels in finding out the whereabouts of the petitioner and the minor child" ordered the Court.

In a carefully worded order, it also reminded the Russian authorities of their obligation to cooperate with India in a criminal investigation, including "locating persons".

"The Embassy of the Russian Federation ought to remind itself the bilateral obligations in terms of 'Treaty between Republic of India and the Russian Federation' on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. The Treaty provides that the contracting parties shall grant each other the widest measure of mutual assistance on legal matters, that would include in respect of investigations, "all proceedings in the jurisdiction of the requesting party" in a criminal matter. Para 6 of the Treaty further explains that the assistance in terms of the Treaty shall include "6.1. Locating and identifying persons and objects", etc..."

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order upon hearing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who informed that MEA sent a communication to the Russian embassy seeking assist inter-alia in ascertaining the whereabouts of the petitioner-woman and the minor son. However, the embassy expressed inability to share the information on the ground that it requires consent before sharing an individual's information but it has not been able to trace the petitioner in order to do so.

The ASG further informed that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner for various offenses, including kidnapping, forgery of valuable security, forgery of digital/electronic record and criminal conspiracy. She also stated that INTERPOL issued a blue corner notice against the petitioner on August 11 and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the concerned SHO of Delhi Police (after the Court's observations on Delhi police's negligence). On a specific query, the ASG further said that no contact has been made with the petitioner or the minor child.

In response, Justice Kant asked, "Why Indian embassy in Moscow is shirking from its responsibility? They are the most potential source of reaching out and finding out...". On this, Bhati said that various channels have been opened and given India's strong diplomatic relations with Russia, some positive development may be expected.

As such, the bench passed its order in the above terms. Before parting, Justice Kant remarked that the present case is not one which can be resolved by force or a coercive order. "It's more an issue now of diplomatic channels and tactful handling" the judge said, while assuring that requisite orders, to do away with impediments being faced by officers, can be passed if required.

It may be recalled that on July 21, the Union informed the Court that based on the Russian woman's IP address history, she seemed to have left India. It was found that she was in Bihar on July 8 and thereafter in Nepal. Subsequently, she went to UAE and took a flight from there to Russia, where she reached on July 16. The findings however remained to be confirmed by the concerned airlines.

Upon being apprised of the development, and noting that the child's Indian passport was surrendered before the Court, the bench hinted at possible involvement of Russian embassy officials and Indian authorities in the petitioner's likely escape on forged/fabricated documents. In this regard, the Union assured that investigation was underway. Observing that it was a case of "gross contempt" of Court, the bench listed the matter after 1 week, calling on the Union to file an updated status report.

On August 1, based on the report filed by Delhi Police and an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was noted that the incident occurred due to the failure of Delhi Police to act as directed in order dated May 22, 2025. In that order, the Court had directed Delhi Police to maintain discreet but effective vigil over the residences of both parents and to deploy women police officers who could enter the woman's residence in case of an emergency.

Criticizing the Delhi Police for its “sheer negligence”, Justice Kant remarked, “What were they (Delhi Police) doing? It is a clear case of criminal negligence on their part also". The judge added that local police officials, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police, “owe a responsibility” and would not be spared. Further noting that the child had been taken away from the custody of the Court, not the parent(s), the bench directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately reach out to the Indian Embassy in Moscow and explore ways to establish contact with the woman and the child. The matter was re-listed after 10 days to enable the government to submit a thorough proposal on how it plans to produce the woman and the child before the bench.

Background

The petitioner-wife had filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, wherein several interim orders were passed from time to time. While she is a Russian citizen, the child's father (respondent No.2) is of Indian origin. Their 5-yr old child was born in 2020. Pursuant to the Court's orders, the couple had been residing in Delhi in separate accommodations having joint custody of the child.

There were allegations between the parties regarding treatment of the child. On 22 May, exclusive custody of the child was given to the Russian mother for 3 days in a week. On the remaining days, he was to remain in the exclusive custody of the father.

Recently, the father filed an application seeking compliance with the Court's May 22 order. He pointed out that his wife is not traceable since 7 July, after school hours of the minor child. She is not available on phone, or her residence. The minor child has not been taken to his requisite medical check-up or to the school.

Statedly, several complaints of the father remained unanswered and even his advocates were allegedly misled regarding the child's location. As per claims, the mother was seen entering the Russian embassy through a back door on 4 July along with a Russian diplomat, with whom she is allegedly in some sort of relationship. It was further alleged that the police failed to provide protection to the minor child.

On July 17, the Court was apprised that “the Russian mother and the child have vanished into wilderness”. When the petitioner's counsels as well submitted that they were not aware of her whereabouts, the Court passed stringent directions to the Union and Delhi government authorities to trace the petitioner immediately and ensure that she does not leave the country with the child. It also cautioned that if Russian embassy officials are found involved in commission of an offense, law will take its own course.

On July 18, Union government informed the Court that the woman did not seem to have left the country, at least through legal channels. It was further stated that lookout circular, hue and cry notices, wireless messages, etc. had been issued and circulated across the country to trace the missing child and the Russian mother. The Court, on its part, again called on the authorities to trace the child and the Russian mother immediately, and to take actively engage the respondent-father in the search efforts.

Case Title: VIKTORIIA BASU Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023