tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70884224384910357312024-03-08T11:40:36.311-08:00Child Custody Laws in IndiaChild Custody Law in India,Foreign Child Custody Order in India,Child Support in India,Child Custody Cases in India,Child Alimony and Maintenance Law in India,Child Visitation Order in Divorce Proceeding,Child Custody in Divorce cases in India,a mother's rights in child custody in india., best child custody lawyer in delhi., cases where father wins custody in india, indian child custody laws, child custody lawyers for father, best child custody lawyer in delhi, custody of child attorney india.V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-39149667837197512362017-03-21T09:38:00.000-07:002017-03-21T09:38:23.416-07:00 Custody of minor Child Under Indian Law.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“In Laxmi Kant Pandey, this Court duly noted the provisions
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but in the general context of
adoption of children and, in particular, regarding the necessity to involve the
natural parents in the consequent guardianship/custody proceedings. The
provisions of the Convention which we have extracted indeed reiterate the
settled legal position that the welfare of the child is of paramount
consideration vis a vis the perceived rights of parents not only so far as the
law in India is concerned, but preponderantly in all jurisdictions across the
globe. We are mindful of the fact that we are presently not confronted with a
custody conflict and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to even
contemplate the competence or otherwise of the Appellant as custodian of the
interests and welfare of her child. However, we would be loathe to lose
perspective of our parens patriae obligations, and in that regard we need to
ensure that the child’s right to know the identity of his parents is not
vitiated, undermined, compromised or jeopardised. In order to secure and
safeguard this right, we have interviewed the Appellant and impressed upon her
the need to disclose the name of the father to her son. She has disclosed his
name, along with some particulars to us; she states that she has no further
information about him. These particulars have been placed in an envelope and
duly sealed, and may be read only pursuant to a specific direction of this
Court. “</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
————————————————————————–------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
CIVIL APPEAL NO. …….. OF 2015<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28367 of 2011]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
ABC
… Appellant<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Versus<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The State (NCT of Delhi) … Respondent<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A legal nodus of seminal significance and of prosaic
procedural origination presents itself before us. The conundrum is whether it
is imperative for an unwed mother to specifically notify the putative father of
the child whom she has given birth to of her petition for appointment as the
guardian of her child. The common perception would be that three competing
legal interests would arise, namely, of the mother and the father and the
child. We think that it is only the last one which is conclusive, since the
parents in actuality have only legal obligations. A child, as has been
ubiquitously articulated in different legal forums, is not a chattel or a ball
to be shuttled or shunted from one parent to the other. The Court exercises
paren patrae jurisdiction in custody or guardianship wrangles; it steps in to
secure the welfare of the hapless child of two adults whose personal
differences and animosity has taken precedence over the future of their child.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Leave granted. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment
dated 8.8.2011 delivered by the High Court of Delhi, which has dismissed the
First Appeal of the Appellant, who is an unwed mother, holding that her
guardianship application cannot be entertained unless she discloses the name
and address of the father of her child, thereby enabling the Court to issue
process to him. As per the Appellant’s request, her identity and personal
details as well as those of her son have not been revealed herein.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Appellant, who adheres to the Christian faith, is well
educated, gainfully employed and financially secure. She gave birth to her son
in 2010, and has subsequently raised him without any assistance from or
involvement of his putative father. Desirous of making her son her nominee in
all her savings and other insurance policies, she took steps in this direction,
but was informed that she must either declare the name of the father or get a
guardianship/adoption certificate from the Court. She thereupon filed an
application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the Act)
before the Guardian Court for declaring her the sole guardian of her son.
Section 11 of the Act requires a notice to be sent to the parents of the child
before a guardian is appointed. The Appellant has published a notice of the
petition in a daily newspaper, namely Vir Arjun, Delhi Edition but is strongly
averse to naming the father. She has filed an affidavit stating that if at any
time in the future the father of her son raises any objections regarding his
guardianship, the same may be revoked or altered as the situation may require.
However, the Guardian Court directed her to reveal the name and whereabouts of
the father and consequent to her refusal to do so, dismissed her guardianship
application on 19.4.2011.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Appellant’s appeal before the High Court was
dismissed in limine, on the reasoning that her allegation that she is a single
mother could only be decided after notice is issued to the father; that a
natural father could have an interest in the welfare and custody of his child
even if there is no marriage; and that no case can be decided in the absence of
a necessary party.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant,
has vehemently argued before us that the Appellant does not want the future of
her child to be marred by any controversy regarding his paternity, which would
indubitably result should the father refuse to acknowledge the child as his own.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is a brooding reality as the father is already married
and any publicity as to a declaration of his fathering a child out of wedlock
would have pernicious repercussions to his present family. There would be
severe social complications for her and her child. As per Section 7 of the Act,
the interest of the minor is the only relevant factor for appointing of a
guardian, and the rights of the mother and father are subservient thereto. In
this scenario, the interest of the child would be best served by immediately
appointing the Appellant as the guardian. Furthermore, it is also pressed to
the fore that her own fundamental right to privacy will be violated if she is
compelled to disclose the name and particulars of the father of her child. Ms.
Malhotra has painstakingly argued this Appeal, fully cognizant that the
question that arises is of far reaching dimensions. It is this very feature
that convinced us of the expediency of appointing amicus curiae, and Mr.
Sidharth Luthra has discharged these onerous duties zealously, for which we
must immediately record our indebtedness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It would be pertinent to succinctly consider the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890. The Act, which applies to Christians in India, lays down
the procedure by which guardians are to be appointed by the Jurisdictional
Court. Sections 7, 11 and 19 deserve extraction, for facility of reference.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“7. Power of the court to make order as to guardianship (1)
Where the court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an
order should be made-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(a) appointing a guardian of his person or property, or
both, or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, the court may make an order accordingly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(2) An order under this section shall imply the removal of
any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other instrument or
appointed or declared by the court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(3) Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other
instrument or appointed or declared by the court, an order under this section
appointing or declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not be
made until the powers of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have
ceased under the provisions of this Act.” The details of the form of
application are contained in Section 10 and the procedure that applies to a
guardianship application is prescribed in Section 11.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Procedure on admission of application (1) If the Court is
satisfied that there is ground for proceeding on the application, it shall fix
a day for the hearing thereof, and cause notice of the application and of the
date fixed for the hearing-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(a) to be served in the manner directed in the Code of Civil
Procedure,1882(14 of 1882)11 on-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(i) the parents of the minor if they are residing in any
State to which this Act extends;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(ii) the person, if any, named in the petition or letter as
having the custody or possession of the person or property of the minor;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(iii) the person proposed in the application or letter to be
appointed or declared guardian, unless that person is himself the applicant;
and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(iv) any other person to whom, in the opinion of the court
special notice of the applicant should be given; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house
and of the residence of the minor, and otherwise published in such manner as
the court, subject to any rules made by the High Court under this Act, thinks
fit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(2) The State Government may, by general or special order,
require that when any part of the property described in a petition under
section 10, sub- section (1), is land of which a Court of Wards could assume
the superintendence, the court shall also cause a notice as aforesaid to be
served on the Collector in whose district the minor ordinarily resides and on
every Collector in whose district any portion of the land is situate, and the
Collector may cause the notice to be published in any manner he deems fit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(3) No charge shall be made by the court or the Collector
for the service or publication of any notice served or published under
sub-section (2).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Section 19 is of significance, even though the infant son
does not independently own or possess any property, in that it specifically
alludes to the father of a minor. It reads thus:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Guardian not to be appointed by the court in certain cases
Nothing in this Chapter shall authorise the court to appoint or declare a
guardian of the property of a minor whose property is under the superintendence
of a Court of Wards or to appoint or declare a guardian of the person-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(a) of a minor who is a married female and whose husband is
not, in the opinion of court, unfit to be guardian of her person; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(b) of a minor whose father is living and is not in the
opinion of the court, unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(c) of a minor whose property is under the superintendence
of a Court of Wards competent to appoint a guardian of the person of the minor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We must immediately underscore the difference in
nomenclature, i.e. ‘parents’ in Section 11 and ‘father’ in Section 19, which we
think will be perilous to ignore.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is contended on behalf of the State that Section 11
requires a notice to be given to the ‘parents’ of a minor before a guardian is
appointed; and that as postulated by Section 19, a guardian cannot be appointed
if the father of the minor is alive and is not, in the opinion of the court,
unfit to be the guardian of the child. The impugned judgment is, therefore, in
accordance with the Act and should be upheld. It seems to us that this
interpretation does not impart comprehensive significance to Section 7, which
is the quintessence of the Act. However, before discussing the intendment and
interpretation of the Act, it would be helpful to appreciate the manner in
which the same issue has been dealt with in other statutes and spanning
different legal systems across the globe.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Section 6(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
makes specific provisions with respect to natural guardians of illegitimate
children, and in this regard gives primacy to the mother over the father.
Mohammedan law accords the custody of illegitimate children to the mother and
her relations. The law follows the principle that the maternity of a child is
established in the woman who gives birth to it, irrespective of the lawfulness
of her connection with the begetter. However, paternity is inherently nebulous
especially where the child is not an offspring of marriage. Furthermore, as per
Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which applies to Christians in
India, the domicile of origin of an illegitimate child is in the country in
which at the time of his birth his mother is domiciled. This indicates that
priority, preference and pre- eminence is given to the mother over the father
of the concerned child.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the United Kingdom, the Children Act 1989 allocates
parental responsibility, which includes all rights, duties, powers,
responsibilities and authority of a parent over the child and his/her property.
According to Section 2(2) of that Act, parental custody of a child born of
unwed parents is with the mother in all cases, and additionally with the father
provided he has acquired responsibility in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. To acquire responsibility, he would have to register as the child’s
father, execute a parental responsibility agreement with the mother or obtain a
Court order giving him parental responsibility over the child. In the U.S.A.,
each State has different child custody laws but predominantly the mother has
full legal and physical custody from the time the child is born. Unless an
unmarried father establishes his paternity over the child it is generally
difficult for him to defeat or overwhelm the preferential claims of the mother
to the custody. However, some States assume that both parents who sign the
child’s Birth Certificate have joint custody, regardless of whether they are
married. In Ireland, Section 6(4) of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964
ordains – “The mother of an illegitimate infant shall be guardian of the
infant.” Unless the mother agrees to sign a statutory declaration, an unmarried
father must apply to the Court in order to become a legal guardian of his
child. Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines explicitly provides
that “illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the
parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in
conformity with this Code.” This position obtains regardless of whether the
father admits paternity. In 2004, the Supreme Court of the Philippines in Joey
D. Briones vs. Maricel P. Miguel et al, G.R. No. 156343, held that an
illegitimate child is under the sole parental authority of the mother. The law
in New Zealand, as laid out in Section 17 of the Care of Children Act, 2004, is
that the mother of a child is the sole guardian if she is not married to, or in
civil union with, or living as a de facto partner with the father of the child at
any time during the period beginning with the conception of the child and
ending with the birth of the child. In South Africa, according to the
Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005, parental responsibility includes the
responsibility and the right (a) to care for the child; (b) to maintain contact
with the child; (c) to act as guardian of the child; and (d) to contribute to
the maintenance of the child. The biological mother of a child, whether married
or unmarried, has full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the
child. The father has full parental responsibility if he is married to the
mother, or if he was married to her at the time of the child’s conception, or
at the time of the child’s birth or any time in between, or if at the time of
the child’s birth he was living with the mother in a permanent
life-partnership, or if he (i) consents to be identified or successfully
applies in terms of Section 26 to be identified as the child’s father or pays
damages in terms of customary law; (ii) contributes or has attempted in good
faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period; and
(iii) contributes or has attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses
in connection with the maintenance of the child for a reasonable period. This
conspectus indicates that the preponderant position that it is the unwed mother
who possesses primary custodial and guardianship rights with regard to her
children and that the father is not conferred with an equal position merely by
virtue of his having fathered the child. This analysis should assist us in a
meaningful, dynamic and enduring interpretation of the law as it exists in
India.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is thus abundantly clear that the predominant legal
thought in different civil and common law jurisdictions spanning the globe as
well as in different statutes within India is to bestow guardianship and
related rights to the mother of a child born outside of wedlock. Avowedly, the
mother is best suited to care for her offspring, so aptly and comprehensively
conveyed in Hindi by the word ‘mamta’. Furthermore, recognizing her maternity
would obviate the necessity of determining paternity. In situations such this,
where the father has not exhibited any concern for his offspring, giving him
legal recognition would be an exercise in futility. In today’s society, where
women are increasingly choosing to raise their children alone, we see no
purpose in imposing an unwilling and unconcerned father on an otherwise viable
family nucleus. It seems to us that a man who has chosen to forsake his duties
and responsibilities is not a necessary constituent for the wellbeing of the
child. The Appellant has taken care to clarify that should her son’s father
evince any interest in his son, she would not object to his participation in the
litigation, or in the event of its culmination, for the custody issue to be
revisited. Although the Guardian Court needs no such concession, the mother’s
intent in insisting that the father should not be publically notified seems to
us not to be unreasonable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We feel it necessary to add that the purpose of our analysis
of the law in other countries was to arrive at a holistic understanding of what
a variety of jurisdictions felt would be in the best interest of the child. It
was not, as learned Counsel suggested, to understand the tenets of Christian
law. India is a secular nation and it is a cardinal necessity that religion be
distanced from law. Therefore, the task before us is to interpret the law of
the land, not in light of the tenets of the parties’ religion but in keeping
with legislative intent and prevailing case law.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is imperative that the rights of the mother must also be
given due consideration. As Ms. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant, has eloquently argued, the Appellant’s fundamental right of privacy
would be violated if she is forced to disclose the name and particulars of the
father of her child. Any responsible man would keep track of his offspring and
be concerned for the welfare of the child he has brought into the world; this
does not appear to be so in the present case, on a perusal of the pleading as
they presently portray. Furthermore, Christian unwed mothers in India are
disadvantaged when compared to their Hindu counterparts, who are the natural
guardians of their illegitimate children by virtue of their maternity alone,
without the requirement of any notice to the putative fathers. It would be
apposite for us to underscore that our Directive Principles envision the
existence of a uniform civil code, but this remains an unaddressed
constitutional expectation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We recognize that the father’s right to be involved in his
child’s life may be taken away if Section 11 is read in such a manner that he
is not given notice, but given his lack of involvement in the child’s life, we
find no reason to prioritize his rights over those of the mother or her child.
Additionally, given that the Appellant has already issued notice to the public
in general by way of a publication in a National Daily and has submitted an
affidavit stating that her guardianship rights may be revoked, altered or
amended if at any point the father of the child objects to them, the rights,
nay duty of the father have been more than adequately protected.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The issue at hand is the interpretation of Section 11 of the
Act. As the intention of the Act is to protect the welfare of the child, the
applicability of Section 11 would have to be read accordingly. In Laxmi Kant
Pandey vs. Union of India 1985 (Supp) SCC 701, this Court prohibited notice of
guardianship applications from being issued to the biological parents of a
child in order to prevent them from tracing the adoptive parents and the child.
Although the Guardians and Wards Act was not directly attracted in that case,
nevertheless it is important as it reiterates that the welfare of the child
takes priority above all else, including the rights of the parents. In the
present case we do not find any indication that the welfare of the child would
be undermined if the Appellant is not compelled to disclose the identity of the
father, or that Court notice is mandatory in the child’s interest. On the
contrary, we find that this may well protect the child from social stigma and
needless controversy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even in the absence of Laxmi Kant Pandey, we are not like
mariners in unchartered troubled seas. The observations of a three Judge Bench
of this Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228 are
readily recollected. The RBI had refused to accept an application for a fixed
deposit in the name of the child signed solely by the mother. In the context of
Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as well as Section 19 of
the Guardians and Wards Act, this Court had clarified that “in all situations
where the father is not in actual charge of the affairs of the minor either
because of his indifference or because of an agreement between him and the
mother of the minor (oral or written) and the minor is in the exclusive care
and custody of the mother or the father for any other reason is unable to take
care of the minor because of his physical and/or mental incapacity, the mother
can act as natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid
even during the life time of the father who would be deemed to be “absent” for
the purposes of Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act.”
This Court has construed the word ‘after’ in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act as meaning “in the absence of – be it temporary or
otherwise or total apathy of the father towards the child or even inability of
the father by reason of ailment or otherwise.” Thus this Court interpreted the
legislation before it in a manner conducive to granting the mother, who was the
only involved parent, guardianship rights over the child.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a case where one of the parents petitions the Court for
appointment as guardian of her child, we think that the provisions of Section
11 would not be directly applicable. It seems to us that Section 11 applies to
a situation where the guardianship of a child is sought by a third party,
thereby making it essential for the welfare of the child being given in
adoption to garner the views of child’s natural parents. The views of an
uninvolved father are not essential, in our opinion, to protect the interests
of a child born out of wedlock and being raised solely by his/her mother. We
may reiterate that even in the face of the express terms of the statute, this
Court had in Laxmi Kant Pandey directed that notice should not be sent to the
parents, as that was likely to jeopardize the future and interest of the child
who was being adopted. The sole factor for consideration before us, therefore,
is the welfare of the minor child, regardless of the rights of the parents. We
should not be misunderstood as having given our imprimatur to an attempt by one
of the spouses to unilaterally seek custody of a child from the marriage behind
the back of other spouse. The apprehensions of Mr. Luthra, learned amicus
curiae, are accordingly addressed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Section 11 is purely procedural; we see no harm or mischief
in relaxing its requirements to attain the intendment of the Act. Given that
the term “parent” is not defined in the Act, we interpret it, in the case of
illegitimate children whose sole caregiver is one of his/her parents, to principally
mean that parent alone. Guardianship or custody orders never attain permanence
or finality and can be questioned at any time, by any person genuinely
concerned for the minor child, if the child’s welfare is in peril. The
uninvolved parent is therefore not precluded from approaching the Guardian
Court to quash, vary or modify its orders if the best interests of the child so
indicate. There is thus no mandatory and inflexible procedural requirement of
notice to be served to the putative father in connection with a guardianship or
custody petition preferred by the natural mother of the child of whom she is
the sole caregiver.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Implicit in the notion and width of welfare of the child, as
one of its primary concomitants, is the right of the child to know the identity
of his or her parents. This right has now found unquestionable recognition in
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India has acceded to on 11th
November, 1992. This Convention pointedly makes mention, inter alia, to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For facility of reference the salient
provisions are reproduced –<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 1 For the purposes of the present Convention, a
child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the
law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 3<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by
public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a
primary consideration.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection
and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the
rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals
legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all
appropriate legislative and administrative measures.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services
and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform
with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the
areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well
as competent supervision.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 7<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The child shall be registered immediately after birth and
shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality
and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her
parents.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 9<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be
separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent
authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable
law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of
the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one
involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the
parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s
place of residence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present
article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in
the proceedings and make their views known.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is
separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct
contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the
child’s best interests.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 12<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of
forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all
matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in
accordance with the age and maturity of the child.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided
the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings
affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an
appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national
law.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 18<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure
recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for
the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be,
legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and
development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic
concern.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 21 States Parties that recognize and/or permit the
system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be
the paramount consideration and they shall:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(a) Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only
by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and
procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the
adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents,
relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have
given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling
as may be necessary;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Article 27<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the
primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial
capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure
the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons
having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and
from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility
for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties
shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of
such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In Laxmi Kant Pandey, this Court duly noted the provisions
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but in the general context of
adoption of children and, in particular, regarding the necessity to involve the
natural parents in the consequent guardianship/custody proceedings. The
provisions of the Convention which we have extracted indeed reiterate the
settled legal position that the welfare of the child is of paramount
consideration vis a vis the perceived rights of parents not only so far as the
law in India is concerned, but preponderantly in all jurisdictions across the
globe. We are mindful of the fact that we are presently not confronted with a
custody conflict and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to even
contemplate the competence or otherwise of the Appellant as custodian of the interests
and welfare of her child. However, we would be loathe to lose perspective of
our parens patriae obligations, and in that regard we need to ensure that the
child’s right to know the identity of his parents is not vitiated, undermined,
compromised or jeopardised. In order to secure and safeguard this right, we
have interviewed the Appellant and impressed upon her the need to disclose the
name of the father to her son. She has disclosed his name, along with some
particulars to us; she states that she has no further information about him.
These particulars have been placed in an envelope and duly sealed, and may be
read only pursuant to a specific direction of this Court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We are greatly perturbed by the fact that the Appellant has
not obtained a Birth Certificate for her son who is nearly five years old. This
is bound to create problems for the child in the future. In this regard, the
Appellant has not sought any relief either before us or before any of the
Courts below. It is a misplaced assumption in the law as it is presently
perceived that the issuance of a Birth Certificate would be a logical corollary
to the Appellant succeeding in her guardianship petition. It may be recalled
that owing to curial fiat, it is no longer necessary to state the name of the
father in applications seeking admission of children to school, as well as for
obtaining a passport for a minor child. However, in both these cases, it may
still remain necessary to furnish a Birth Certificate. The law is dynamic and
is expected to diligently keep pace with time and the legal conundrums and
enigmas it presents. There is no gainsaying that the identity of the mother is
never in doubt. Accordingly, we direct that if a single parent/unwed mother
applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb,
the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this
effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court
direction to the contrary. Trite though it is, yet we emphasise that it is the
responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any inconvenience
or disadvantage merely because the parents fail or neglect to register the
birth. Nay, it is the duty of the State to take requisite steps for recording
every birth of every citizen. To remove any possible doubt, the direction
pertaining to issuance of the Birth Certificate is intendedly not restricted to
the circumstances or the parties before us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We think it necessary to also underscore the fact that the
Guardian Court as well as the High Court which was in seisin of the Appeal
ought not to have lost sight of the fact that they had been called upon to
discharge their parens patriae jurisdiction. Upon a guardianship petition being
laid before the Court, the concerned child ceases to be in the exclusive
custody of the parents; thereafter, until the attainment of majority, the child
continues in curial curatorship. Having received knowledge of a situation that
vitally affected the future and welfare of a child, the Courts below could be
seen as having been derelict in their duty in merely dismissing the petition
without considering all the problems, complexities and complications concerning
the child brought within its portals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Appeal is therefore allowed. The Guardian Court is
directed to recall the dismissal order passed by it and thereafter consider the
Appellant’s application for guardianship expeditiously without requiring notice
to be given to the putative father of the child.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN) ………………………………..J<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) …….J<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-82986783977764411782016-10-11T21:43:00.000-07:002016-10-11T21:43:19.419-07:00Joint Custody/equal custody of son to both the parents.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this matter The Hon"ble Held that:-</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having held so, it would be necessary to consider as to who
would be entitled to the custody of Anvesh. The wife has admitted in her cross-examination
that her brother had threatened to kill Anvesh. She had also admitted in her
cross-examination that though on 08.09.2011, she had telephoned the husband
that Anvesh had a fall and had a bump on his head with a bleeding injury, she
did not take Anvesh to a doctor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though the aforesaid admissions on the part of the wife
would result in recording a finding that the wife was not taking proper care of
Anvesh, we are not inclined to permit the husband to have the custody of Anvesh
in the entirety. It is not in dispute that the husband is paying a sum of
Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Anvesh and also paying the school fees, fees for
the speech and development therapy and is bearing the other expenses for
Anvesh. It is fairly stated on behalf of the husband that even if the custody
of Anvesh is granted to the husband, the husband would still continue to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- to the wife. We have found from the evidence of the husband
and the statements made on his behalf in this Court at the time of hearing that
the husband is conducting himself as a good father and is also desirous of
giving a substantial amount to the wife towards her maintenance. It is also not
disputed by the counsel for the wife that the husband used to drop and collect
Anvesh from the school and the coaching classes, even after the parties had
decided to share the custody-access to Anvesh, as per the terms of settlement,
FCA 344/14 19 Judgment executed on 19.09.2013. The husband and the wife had
agreed in terms of the interim settlement that Anvesh would be in the custody
of the wife from Monday to Friday and from Friday evening to Monday Morning,
the custody-access of Anvesh would be with the husband. We find that the
custody of Anvesh is given to the wife by the Family Court only because the
custody of a child should normally remain with the mother, if the child is
below five years of age. Now, Anvesh is seven years of age and in the
circumstances narrated hereinabove, it would be necessary in the interest of
justice to permit the husband to have the custody of Anvesh for some more time
during the school days and equally with the wife during the vacations. In the
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant the custody of Anvesh
only to one of the parents as the child is a slow learner, and in our view,
both the parents should be able to shower their love and affection on Anvesh so
that the child remains attached with both of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The terms of settlement executed between the parties on
19.09.2013 as an interim arrangement have worked to a great extent and in the
circumstances of the case, we direct that the custody of Anvesh would be with
the husband from Friday evening (after the School hours) till Tuesday morning,
when Anvesh would be dropped to the school. It is needless to mention that the
wife would have the custody of Anvesh from FCA 344/14 20 Judgment Tuesday
evening (after the School hours) till Friday evening. We have arrived at this
arrangement, with a view to give equal opportunity to both the parents to spend
time with Anvesh who is just seven years of age and is a slow learner. The
husband may continue to drop Anvesh to the school and classes and bring him
back to the house of the wife even when Anvesh would be in the custody of the
wife. During the vacations, the custody of Anvesh should be shared equally by
the husband and the wife, that is to say that, if the vacations are for a
period of twenty two days, Anvesh would remain with each of the parents for
eleven days. This arrangement would apply to all the vacations including the
Summer, the Winter and the Diwali vacations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 344/2014<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
WITH<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
CROSS OBJECTION NO.15/2012<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sau. Sarika W/o.
Sachin Palsokar,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
aged 32 years,
Occ. : Household,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
R/o. C/o.
Vasantrao Pimpalkar,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
102, Sai-Prasad
Apartments, Revti<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nagar, Besa,
Nagpur. APPELLANT<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
.....VERSUS.....<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sachin S/o. Suresh
Palsokar,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
aged 36 years,
Occ. : Service,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
R/o. Sahajivan
flats - 2, in front of<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
LAD College,
Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mrs. T.D. Khade, counsel for the appellant.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Shri A.V. Khare, counsel for
the respondent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
CORAM
:SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
DATE : SEPTEMBER,
2016<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER
: SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant challenges the
judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 20.12.2011 allowing a petition filed
by the respondent for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. In the First Appeal filed by the appellant, the respondent
has filed a Cross Objection for seeking the custody of the minor child as the
Family Court has held that the custody of the minor child, would remain with
the appellant.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
FCA 344/14 2 Judgment<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. Few facts giving rise to this Family Court Appeal and the
Cross Objection are stated thus :-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife'
for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred
to as ' the husband') were married at Nagpur as per the Hindu rites and custom
on 20.02.2009. A son by name Anvesh was born from the wedlock on 13.10.2009.
The husband and the wife belong to highly educated middle class families and
the wife was made aware before the solemnization of the marriage that she would
be required to stay in the matrimonial home along with the parents of the
husband. After the marriage, the wife started residing in the matrimonial home
at Nagpur.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The husband had taken the wife to Kerala after the marriage
was solemnized and from the inception of the marriage, the husband found that
the wife was behaving strangely. It is stated by the husband in the Hindu
Marriage Petition filed by him for a decree of divorce that the wife continued
to behave badly with the husband and his parents though they tried to keep her
happy. It is pleaded that the wife used to lose her temper on petty matters and
used to shout on the parents of the husband.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is pleaded that the wife always threatened the husband
and his parents that she would commit suicide. It is pleaded that the wife
insisted that the husband should reside separately in a nuclear family. It is
pleaded FCA 344/14 3 Judgment that the husband suffered mental trauma due to
the quarrelsome, rude and insulting behaviour of the wife. It is pleaded that
the wife did not contribute in the household work. It is pleaded that the
father of the husband wrote a letter on 28.06.2009 to the father of the wife
about her whimsical behaviour. It is stated that the father of the wife
acknowledged the goodness of the husband and his parents and promised to advise
his daughter. It is pleaded that Anvesh was a slow learner and required great
care and attention. It is stated that after the birth of Anvesh there was no
change in the behaviour of the wife and she constantly threatened the husband
to leave the matrimonial home and commit suicide. It is pleaded that the wife
also threatened the husband that she would throw and harm Anvesh. It is pleaded
that the wife needed medical treatment from a Psychiatrist but, she was not
ready to take treatment. It is pleaded that on 24.05.2010, the wife left the
matrimonial house along with Anvesh, with an assurance that she would take
medical treatment and join the company of the husband but, she did not do so.
It is pleaded that on the same day, the wife swallowed tablets and called the
police, her parents and Smt. Mrunal Dani, and all of them advised her to behave
properly and to take medical treatment. It is pleaded that as the police had
visited the matrimonial house, the mother of the husband suffered a heart
attack.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is pleaded that on 17.06.2010, when the husband and the
wife were returning from the hospital of Dr. Bhole where Anvesh was being
treated, FCA 344/14 4 Judgment the wife started behaving erratically. It is
pleaded that the child was kept on the floor of the house and the wife went
near the well, stood on the brick-skirt of the well and threatened that she
would commit suicide if the husband does not behave as per her wishes. It is
pleaded that the wife threatened the husband to throw the son in the well and
asked the husband to take both of them to the matrimonial home. It is pleaded
that the parents of the wife brought her into the house with great efforts. It
is pleaded that the husband apprehended that the wife would go to any extent to
harass the husband and his parents and may also harm Anvesh to implicate the
husband or his family members in a false criminal case.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While seeking the decree of divorce on the aforesaid
allegations, the husband also sought the custody of Anvesh, who was aged about
2-3 years at the relevant time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3. The wife filed the written statement and denied the claim
of the husband. The wife denied all the adverse allegations levelled by the
husband against her. The wife pleaded that the husband had differences with the
wife on trivial issues. It is pleaded that due to the short temper of the
parents of the husband, it was difficult for her to stay in the matrimonial
home, along with them. The wife pleaded that she was required to return to her
parental home in view of the ill-treatment meted out by the parents of the
husband to her. It is pleaded that the father of FCA 344/14 5 Judgment the
husband wrote a note in his own handwriting and compelled the wife and her
father to sign the same. It is pleaded that the wife was forcibly asked to sign
on the documents that recited that she would behave properly with the husband
and his family members after she returned to the matrimonial home. It is
pleaded that due to the threat of the husband and his parents, the wife and her
father had signed on a document that recited that the wife would behave well
with her husband and his parents, after she returned to the matrimonial home.
It is pleaded that the family life of the husband and the wife became miserable
only because of the interference of the parents of the husband. It is pleaded
that the parents of the husband tortured her mentally and assaulted her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The wife pleaded that the husband used to beat her and the
father of the husband also tried to assault her. It is pleaded that when the
husband and his father tried to beat her, she was required to call the police.
It is pleaded that the wife tried her level best to behave well with the
husband and his family members but they had high expectations. The wife denied
that the husband was entitled to the custody of the minor child at the tender
age of 2-3 years. The wife sought for the dismissal of the petition filed by
the husband.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family
Court framed the issues. The husband examined himself and also examined his FCA
344/14 6 Judgment father and Dr.Nilkanth Nimdeokar. The wife examined herself
and closed the evidence on her side. On an appreciation of the evidence on
record, the Family Court, by the judgment dated 20.12.2011, decreed the
petition filed by the husband for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act and directed that the custody of Anvesh shall remain with the
wife. Being aggrieved with the part of the judgment granting a decree of
divorce in favour of the husband, the wife has filed this Family Court Appeal.
The husband has filed the cross-objection, seeking the custody of Anvesh, as
according to the judgment of the Family Court, the custody of Anvesh was to
remain with the wife.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5. Mrs. Khade, the learned counsel for the wife, submitted that
the Family Court was not justified in granting a decree of divorce in favour of
the husband. It is stated that the wife behaved well with the husband and her
in-laws but, they did not treat her well. It is submitted that the husband has
failed in proving that the wife used to frequently quarrel with the husband and
threaten the husband and his parents that she would commit suicide. It is
submitted that the wife desired to live in the matrimonial home and, therefore,
she had signed the document that recited that she would behave properly with
the husband and his parents, if she was permitted to reside in the matrimonial
home. It is stated that the said document was signed by the wife and her father
under pressure FCA 344/14 7 Judgment and, hence, the same could not have been
relied on by the Family Court for holding that the wife was not behaving well
with the husband and her in-laws. It is stated that on a number of occasions,
the husband and his parents had threatened to beat the wife and, therefore, she
was constrained to call the police. It is stated that the Family Court has not
appreciated the evidence of the parties in the right perspective while holding
that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and he was entitled to a
decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. It is stated that the
Family Court has rightly directed that the custody of Anvesh should remain with
the wife as Anvesh needs the care, love and affection of a mother, at the
tender age. It is stated that since Anvesh was aged about two years and since
the custody of a minor child below five years should ordinarily be with the
mother, the Family Court had rightly granted the custody of Anvesh, to the
wife. It is submitted that the husband works with the H.D.F.C. as a senior
officer and, hence, he would not be able to take proper care of Anvesh, who is
now seven years of age.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6. Shri Khare, the learned counsel for the husband,
supported the judgment and decree of the Family Court for divorce under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Act. It is stated that the Family Court has rightly relied on
the admissions of the wife in the cross-examination to grant a decree FCA
344/14 8 Judgment of divorce after holding that the wife had treated the
husband with cruelty. It is stated that though the wife had levelled serious
allegations against the husband and his parents in the written statement, she
had admitted in her cross-examination that the parents of the husband had not
demanded any dowry and her mother-in-law used to cook the food in the morning
and she used to cook the food in the evening. It is stated that the mother of
the husband was a working woman and she used to be out of the house for work
from 10.30 a.m. till 4.30 p.m. It is stated that the Family Court has rightly
held that reckless allegations were levelled by the wife against the husband
and his family members. It is stated that the wife had admitted that when her
mother-in-law had only asked her as to why she had cooked the vegetable (curry)
in the evening when sufficient vegetable that was cooked in the morning was
available, she became angry and had slept empty stomach and also did not have
her lunch on the next day. It is stated that the wife had admitted that in the
evening, on the next day, she had called a tiffin from outside for dinner as
she was angry with her mother-in-law. It is stated that the wife had admitted
that she had destroyed the picture-poster of a baby that was affixed on the
wall when there was a big quarrel between herself and the husband. It is stated
that the wife had admitted that her father had bought a stamp paper (Exhibit
51) and she had signed on the said stamp paper, wherein she had written in her
handwriting that she would behave FCA 344/14 9 Judgment well with her in-laws,
if she was permitted to reside in the matrimonial home. It is stated that the
wife had admitted that she had called the police in the matrimonial home. It is
stated that the wife had also admitted that she was standing near the well, as
pleaded by the husband.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is stated that the wife had admitted that on 01.10.2010,
she had gone to the housing society, where the husband resides and that she had
lived for one night in the house of one Shri Deshpande. It is stated that in
the circumstances of the case and in the face of the admissions of the wife in
her cross-examination, the Family Court was justified in granting a decree of
divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
7. The learned counsel for the husband submitted that Anvesh
is a slow learner and since he is seven years of age now, the custody of Anvesh
may be given to the husband. It is submitted that considering the nature and
the temperament of the wife, as could be gauged from her cross-examination, in
the interest of Anvesh, the custody of Anvesh should be given to the husband.
It is stated that when the wife is in a bad mood, she does not send Anvesh to
the school or to the coaching classes meant for the slow learners. It is stated
that during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal, the husband is dropping
Anvesh to the school in the morning and is picking him up in the evening and
reaching him to the wife. It is stated that though the custody of Anvesh is
with the wife, FCA 344/14 10 Judgment during the working days of the week, i.e.
from Monday to Friday, in terms of the agreement between the parties, as
recorded by this Court in the order dated 21.09.2013, the husband voluntarily
performs the duty of dropping Anvesh to the school and the classes and reaching
him back to the wife's residence on all the school days. It is stated that the
husband is paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.6,000/- for the wife
and Rs.4,000/- for Anvesh) apart from all other expenses that are borne by the
husband for the education and the speech and development therapy of Anvesh. It
is stated that the husband would continue to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the
wife even if this Court grants the custody of Anvesh to the husband. It is
stated that in terms of the settlement that was executed between the parties on
19.09.2013 and recorded in the order dated 21.09.2013, the husband used to have
the access to Anvesh from Friday evening to Monday morning but, the said access
is extremely short. It is stated that in the changed scenario, this Court may
grant the custody of Anvesh to the husband. It is stated that the wife is
living all alone and separately in a rented house and it is admitted by the
wife in her cross-examination that her brother had threatened to kill Anvesh
and in this background, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit
the wife to retain the custody of Anvesh.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
FCA 344/14 11 Judgment<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points
arise for determination in this Family Court Appeal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I) Whether the husband is successful in proving that the
wife had treated him with cruelty and whether he is entitled to a decree of
divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act ?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
II) Whether the husband is entitled to the custody of Anvesh
and/or the wife is entitled to the custody as per the judgment of the Family
Court ?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
III) What order?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
9. To answer the aforesaid points, it would be necessary to
consider the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It would not be necessary to reiterate the pleadings as we
have narrated the pleadings in detail, in the earlier part of this judgment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
10. The husband had examined himself and reiterated the
facts stated by him in his pleadings. The husband was not cross-examined at
length. In his cross-examination, the husband admitted that the wife FCA 344/14
12 Judgment resided with him in short spells. The husband admitted in his
cross-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
examination that the normal voice of the wife was very loud
but, that was not the reason for feeling that she was quarreling when she was
talking normally. The husband admitted that his gross salary is Rs.40,000/- per
month. There were no suggestions to the husband in regard to the allegations
made by him against the wife in respect of the cruel treatment meted out by her
to the husband and his parents. The husband had stated in his
examination-in-chief that the wife was behaving strangely and erratically and
though she was asked not to shout and speak softly, she used to give threats to
him and his parents. Though the husband had stated in the examination-in-chief
that the wife would threaten the husband and his parents that she would commit
suicide, there is no cross-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
examination of the husband on the said allegation. The
husband had stated in his examination-in-chief that the wife had written on the
document at Exhibit 51 that she would mend her ways and behave well with the
husband if she was permitted to live in the matrimonial home and the husband
was not cross-examined on the said statement. The husband had stated in his
examination-in-chief that the wife had gone to a well, stood on the
brick-skirting of the well on or about 17.06.2010 and threatened to commit
suicide if the husband does not behave as per her wishes and there is no
cross-examination of the husband in this respect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The husband had stated in his examination-in-chief that with
great FCA 344/14 13 Judgment efforts, the wife was pulled away from the well
but, the husband was under a constant threat that the wife would either try to
harm herself or Anvesh, if the things did not go her way. Though the husband
had pleaded the aforesaid facts in his petition and had also tendered evidence
on affidavit reiterating the facts in the pleadings, there is no cross-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
examination of the husband on the said facts. In the absence
of cross-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
examination, the Family Court has rightly believed the case
of the husband. Apart from the husband, the husband had examined his father and
also Dr.Nilkanth Nimdeokar. The evidence of the father of the husband and the
doctor supported the case of the husband. Apart from the fact that the evidence
of the husband went unchallenged, the Family Court has rightly relied on the
admissions of the wife in her cross-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
examination to hold that the husband has proved that the
wife has treated the husband with cruelty and he is entitled to a decree of
divorce.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though the wife had stated in her evidence that her in-laws
had harassed her and also assaulted her on certain occasions, the wife did not
prove the said fact by tendering cogent evidence. In fact, the wife admitted in
her cross-examination that her in-laws had never demanded dowry, that her
mother-in-law was in service, that she used to go out for work from 10.30 a.m.
till 4.30 p.m., that the mother-in-law used to cook food in the morning and
that she used to cook the food in the evening. The wife had admitted that her
elder brother used to ill-treat her and had even FCA 344/14 14 Judgment
threatened to kill Anvesh. The wife had admitted in her cross-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
examination that she was aware before the marriage that her
husband was the only son of his parents and that she would be required to live
in a joint family. The wife admitted that when her mother-in-law asked her as
to why she had cooked the vegetable in the evening when there was sufficient
cooked vegetable available, she became angry and had slept empty stomach and
also did not have her lunch on the next day. The wife admitted that in the
evening on the next day, she had called a tiffin from outside for dinner as she
was angry with her mother-in-law. The wife admitted that her father had come to
the matrimonial home and had given her an understanding that she should behave
properly with the husband and her in-laws. The wife admitted that her father
had told her in-laws that the wife was hot tempered. The wife admitted that she
assured her father that she would behave properly with the husband and her
in-laws. The wife further admitted that she had torn the poster-<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
picture of a baby that was affixed on a wall in her bedroom.
The wife admitted that she had written on a stamp paper (Exhibit 51) that she
would behave well with her husband and her in-laws in future and that her
father had bought that stamp paper and that the contents of the stamp paper
were written in her handwriting and that she had signed the same. The wife had
admitted that when there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife on
24.05.2010, she had called the police from her FCA 344/14 15 Judgment
cellphone. The wife had admitted that she was standing near the well as stated
by the husband but, that was not for the purpose of committing suicide. The
wife admitted that on 08.09.2011, i.e. after the separation, she had called the
husband, in his office that Anvesh had fallen down and had a bump on his head
with a bleeding injury but, she did not take Anvesh to the doctor. The wife had
admitted that she had been to the housing society where her husband resides and
lived in the night in the house of one Shri Deshpande and had called the tiffin
for Anvesh from her in-laws. From the aforesaid admissions of the wife, it is
clear that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. In this case, the
evidence of the husband has remained unchallenged. The evidence of the husband
is supported by the evidence of the witnesses examined by him. Apart from the
fact that the evidence of the husband has remained unchallenged, the admissions
of the wife in her cross-examination have further proved that the wife had
treated the husband with cruelty. The wife had made reckless allegations
against the husband and her in-laws in regard to the ill-treatment meted out to
her including the physical violence but, she has failed to prove the same by
leading cogent evidence. In fact, the wife had admitted in her cross-examination
that her in-laws had never demanded dowry, that her mother-in-law used to be
out of the house from 10.30 a.m. till 4.30 p.m. as she was in service, that her
mother-in-law used to cook the food in the morning and that she was required to
cook the food FCA 344/14 16 Judgment in the evening. The wife had admitted that
when her mother-in-law casually asked her as to why she had prepared the
vegetable in the evening when the vegetable cooked in the morning was remaining
and was sufficient for the family, for dinner, the wife became so angry that
she had slept empty stomach that night, did not have her lunch on the next day,
and had called for a tiffin for her, for the dinner on the next day. The
admissions of the wife clearly show that she was extremely hot tempered and she
used to make a big issue of trifle matters. The allegations made by the husband
in regard to the eccentric nature and temperament of the wife are proved by the
husband not only by his evidence, that has gone unchallenged but, also by the
admissions of the wife in her cross-examination. The wife has admitted that she
was standing near the well but, she stated that that was not for the purpose of
committing suicide. We believe the case of the husband that the wife was
threatening the husband that she would commit suicide. The wife was eccentric
and the fact that the wife was standing on the brick-skirting of the well,
shows that the wife threatened the husband that she would commit suicide. The
allegations made by the husband in this regard have been proved by the husband
by tendering cogent evidence, that has remained unchallenged. There is no
cross-examination of the husband on this aspect from the side of the wife. It
is proved by the husband from his evidence as well as the evidence of the wife
in her cross-examination that FCA 344/14 17 Judgment the wife was treating the
husband with cruelty. The Family Court has rightly held that the wife was not
behaving properly with the husband and her in-laws, or else there was no
occasion for her to prepare the writing on the stamp paper, Exhibit 51, that
she would behave well with the husband and the in-laws, in future. The act on
the part of the wife to remain without food for more than a day, when she knew
that she was pregnant, the act on the part of the wife to call the police in
the matrimonial home, the act on the part of the wife to tear the baby poster
after a fight, the act on the part of the wife to stand on the skirting of the
well to threaten the husband, the act on the part of the wife to threaten the
husband to commit suicide, the insistence on the part of the wife to stay away
from his old in-laws and the writing by the wife that she would behave well in
future, show that the wife treated the husband with cruelty. The cumulative effect
of the acts on the part of the wife of becoming angry on trifle matters,
threatening the husband to commit suicide and attempting to commit the same by
standing near the well surely tantamounts to cruelty. It would be difficult for
any husband to live with the wife, who continuously gets flared up on trifle
issues and threatens to commit suicide or injure the minor child. The Family
Court has rightly held that it was clear from the oral and the documentary
evidence on record that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and that
he was entitled to a decree of divorce on the said ground.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
11. Having held so, it would be necessary to consider as to
who would be entitled to the custody of Anvesh. The wife has admitted in her
cross-examination that her brother had threatened to kill Anvesh. She had also
admitted in her cross-examination that though on 08.09.2011, she had telephoned
the husband that Anvesh had a fall and had a bump on his head with a bleeding
injury, she did not take Anvesh to a doctor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though the aforesaid admissions on the part of the wife
would result in recording a finding that the wife was not taking proper care of
Anvesh, we are not inclined to permit the husband to have the custody of Anvesh
in the entirety. It is not in dispute that the husband is paying a sum of
Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Anvesh and also paying the school fees, fees for
the speech and development therapy and is bearing the other expenses for
Anvesh. It is fairly stated on behalf of the husband that even if the custody
of Anvesh is granted to the husband, the husband would still continue to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- to the wife. We have found from the evidence of the husband
and the statements made on his behalf in this Court at the time of hearing that
the husband is conducting himself as a good father and is also desirous of
giving a substantial amount to the wife towards her maintenance. It is also not
disputed by the counsel for the wife that the husband used to drop and collect
Anvesh from the school and the coaching classes, even after the parties had
decided to share the custody-access to Anvesh, as per the terms of settlement,
FCA 344/14 19 Judgment executed on 19.09.2013. The husband and the wife had
agreed in terms of the interim settlement that Anvesh would be in the custody
of the wife from Monday to Friday and from Friday evening to Monday Morning,
the custody-access of Anvesh would be with the husband. We find that the
custody of Anvesh is given to the wife by the Family Court only because the
custody of a child should normally remain with the mother, if the child is
below five years of age. Now, Anvesh is seven years of age and in the
circumstances narrated hereinabove, it would be necessary in the interest of
justice to permit the husband to have the custody of Anvesh for some more time
during the school days and equally with the wife during the vacations. In the
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant the custody of Anvesh
only to one of the parents as the child is a slow learner, and in our view,
both the parents should be able to shower their love and affection on Anvesh so
that the child remains attached with both of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
12. The terms of settlement executed between the parties on
19.09.2013 as an interim arrangement have worked to a great extent and in the
circumstances of the case, we direct that the custody of Anvesh would be with
the husband from Friday evening (after the School hours) till Tuesday morning,
when Anvesh would be dropped to the school. It is needless to mention that the
wife would have the custody of Anvesh from FCA 344/14 20 Judgment Tuesday
evening (after the School hours) till Friday evening. We have arrived at this
arrangement, with a view to give equal opportunity to both the parents to spend
time with Anvesh who is just seven years of age and is a slow learner. The
husband may continue to drop Anvesh to the school and classes and bring him
back to the house of the wife even when Anvesh would be in the custody of the
wife. During the vacations, the custody of Anvesh should be shared equally by
the husband and the wife, that is to say that, if the vacations are for a
period of twenty two days, Anvesh would remain with each of the parents for
eleven days. This arrangement would apply to all the vacations including the
Summer, the Winter and the Diwali vacations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
13. For the reasons aforesaid, the Family Court Appeal is
dismissed. The cross-objection is allowed in terms of the directions in
paragraph 12 of the judgment. In the circumstances of the case, there would be
no order as to costs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
JUDGE JUDGE<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Deshmukh/APTE</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-39592901195346353622015-08-04T00:23:00.000-07:002015-08-04T00:23:45.647-07:00New Child Adoption Guidelines and Laws in India.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">On 17.07.2015 the Central Government notified the following Guidelines issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority, superseding the Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children, 2011 to provide for the regulation of adoption of orphaned, abandoned or surrendered childre<span style="color: black; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">n.</span></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 36pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">•<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Adequately defined terms like ‘prospective adoptive parents’ and ‘surrendered child’ find a place in the preliminary provisions, which also deal with the fundamental principles governing adoption of children and permitting prospective parents’ adoption on realization of the eligibility criteria. Couples having more than four children are not to be considered for adoption.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><o:p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 36pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">•<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Declaration of an abandoned or orphaned child as legally free for adoption shall be done by issuing an Order for the same by the Child Welfare Committee as per the format in Schedule-1. With respect to a surrendered child, recourse to counseling shall be taken to discourage surrender by biological parents. On account of surrender being inevitable, a deed of surrender shall be executed with accordance to the terms, however no advertisement to be issued in case of a surrendered child.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><o:p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 36pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">•<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Home study report of the prospective adoptive parents shall be prepared by the adoption agency and be completed within one month, on the basis of which the eligibility of the prospective adoptive parents shall be declared along with reasons. The registration of an adoption deed is not mandatory. The Specialised Adoption Agency </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">shall file the adoption petition in the court </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">having jurisdiction over the place where it is located, within seven days from the date of acceptance </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">by the prospective adoptive parents for obtaining the necessary adoption.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><o:p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 36pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">•<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Pertaining to inter-country adoption, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">profiles of two children shall be referred to the authorised foreign adoption agency. In case the prospective adoptive parents fail to reserve any of the children within ninety-six hour, then the profile of both the children stand automatically withdrawn. No objection certificate shall be issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority within ten days from the date of receipt of the acceptance of the child by the prospective adoptive parents. For obtaining Indian passport for the adopted child, the specialized adoption agency shall submit the application to the regional passport officer within three working days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the adoption order. The child shall be entitled to receive care, protection and rehabilitation through the child protection services in the event of adjustment problem.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><o:p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 36pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">•<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Directions given which specifies the procedure for renewal, suspension and inspection of Specialised Adoption Agency and enlisting the various functions of the Agency towards children and biological as well as prospective adoptive parents. Role of the Indian diplomatic missions in inter-country adoption of Indian children also finds mention.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><o:p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 36pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">•<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Miscellaneous provisions determining seniority of the prospective adoptive parents facilitating the root search and adoption of children with special needs, also finds acknowledgment.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><o:p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></div>
<div class="Default" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.5499992370605px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: right;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> -<b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Ministry of Women and Child Development</b></span></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-20497378670396630822015-06-01T03:39:00.000-07:002015-06-01T03:39:15.071-07:00Joint Custody of Children's to the divorce parents now in India.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Law Commission on Friday recommended that divorced parents be given joint custody of minor children, a move aimed at doing away with gender bias in India’s custody laws that favour the father.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“Neither the father nor the mother of a minor can, as of a right, claim to be appointed by the court as the guardian unless such an appointment is for the welfare of the minor,” the commission, which advises the government on legal issues, said in a report to the law ministry.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
It proposed two draft bills to amend the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 that prefer the father as the natural guardian. The commission said that despite a Supreme Court judgment, the mother is preferred as the natural guardian while the father is still alive only under exceptional circumstances.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“This is required to be changed to fulfil the principles of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution,” the panel said.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Amendments to the Guardians and Wards Act will also cover visitation arrangements.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
They will be relevant for all custody proceedings bar any personal laws that may apply, the law commission’s report said.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The recommendations assume significance as the idea of shared parenting is still new to custody jurisprudence in India. The panel said the amendments are necessary to bring the law in tune with modern social considerations.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #262626; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.6000003814697px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
With source:http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/law-panel-recommends-shared-custody-of-minor-children/article1-1350188.aspx</div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-7912938023068196272014-05-01T21:21:00.000-07:002014-05-01T21:21:00.790-07:00The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been passed by the
Lok Sabha on, 22nd May, 2012. The Bill was earlier passed by the Rajya Sabha
on 10th May, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been drafted to
strengthen the legal provisions for the protection of children from sexual
abuse and exploitation. For the first time, a special law has been passed to
address the issue of sexual offences against children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Sexual
offences are currently covered under different sections of IPC. The IPC does
not provide for all types of sexual offences against children and, more
importantly, does not distinguish between adult and child victims.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 defines a child as any
person below the age of 18 years and provides protection to all children under
the age of 18 years from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography. These offences have been clearly defined for the first time in
law. The Act provides for stringent punishments, which have been graded as per
the gravity of the offence. The punishments range from simple to rigorous
imprisonment of varying periods. There is also provision for fine, which is to
be decided by the Court. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">An
offence is treated as “aggravated” when committed by a person in a position of
trust or authority of child such as a member of security forces, police
officer, public servant, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Punishments
for Offences covered in the Act are:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Penetrative Sexual Assault (Section 3)
– Not less than seven years which may
extend to imprisonment for life, and fine (Section 4)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault
(Section 5) – Not less than ten years which may extend to imprisonment for
life, and fine (Section 6)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Sexual Assault (Section 7) – Not less than
three years which may extend to five years, and fine (Section 8)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Aggravated Sexual Assault (Section 9) – Not
less than five years which may extend to seven years, and fine (Section 10)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Sexual Harassment of the Child (Section 11)
– Three years and fine (Section 12)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Use of Child for Pornographic Purposes
(Section 13) – Five years and fine and
in the event of subsequent conviction, seven years and fine (Section 14 (1))<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> The Act provides for
the establishment of Special Courts for trial of offences under the Act,
keeping the best interest of the child as of paramount importance at every
stage of the judicial process. The Act incorporates child friendly procedures
for reporting, recording of evidence, investigation and trial of offences. These
include:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">·
Recording the statement of the child at the residence of the child or at
the place of his choice, preferably by a woman police officer not below the
rank of sub-inspector<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· No child to be detained in the police
station in the night for any reason.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Police
officer to not be in uniform while recording the statement of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· The
statement of the child to be recorded as spoken by the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">·
Assistance of an interpreter or translator or an expert as per the need
of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">·
Assistance of special educator or any person familiar with the manner of
communication of the child in case child is disabled<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Medical
examination of the child to be conducted in the presence of the parent of the
child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· In case
the victim is a girl child, the medical examination shall be conducted by a
woman doctor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Frequent
breaks for the child during trial<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· Child not to be
called repeatedly to testify<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">· No
aggressive questioning or character assassination of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">·
In-camera trial of cases<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Act recognizes that the intent to commit an offence, even when unsuccessful for
whatever reason, needs to be penalized. The attempt to commit an offence under
the Act has been made liable for punishment for upto half the punishment
prescribed for the commission of the offence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Act also provides for punishment for abetment of the offence, which is the same
as for the commission of the offence. This would cover trafficking of children
for sexual purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">For
the more heinous offences of Penetrative Sexual Assault, Aggravated Penetrative
Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault and Aggravated Sexual Assault, the burden of
proof is shifted on the accused. This provision has been made keeping in view
the greater vulnerability and innocence of children. At the same time, to
prevent misuse of the law, punishment has been provided for making false
complaint or proving false information with malicious intent. Such punishment
has been kept relatively light (six months) to encourage reporting. If false
complaint is made against a child, punishment is higher (one year).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
media has been barred from disclosing the identity of the child without the
permission of the Special Court. The punishment for breaching this provision by
media may be from six months to one year.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">For
speedy trial, the Act provides for the evidence of the child to be recorded
within a period of 30 days. Also, the Special Court is to complete the trial
within a period of one year, as far as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">To
provide for relief and rehabilitation of the child, as soon as the complaint is
made to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or local police, these will
make immediate arrangements to give the child, care and protection such as
admitting the child into shelter home or to the nearest hospital within twenty-four
hours of the report. The SJPU or the local police are also required to report
the matter to the Child Welfare Committee within 24 hours of recording the
complaint, for long term rehabilitation of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
Act casts a duty on the Central and State Governments to spread awareness
through media including the television, radio and the print media at regular
intervals to make the general public, children as well as their parents and
guardians aware of the provisions of this Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State
Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs) have been made the
designated authority to monitor the implementation of the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Sources:
<a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=84409">http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=84409</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-10703626882081644732014-05-01T21:15:00.000-07:002014-05-01T21:15:46.386-07:00Care and Protection of Children Act in India<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
REPORTABLE<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> WRIT
PETITION (C) NO. 10 OF 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">SALIL BALI
... PETITIONER<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> VS.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
WITH<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
W.P.(C)NOS.14, 42, 85, 90 and 182 OF 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> WITH<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
W.P.(CRL)NO.6 OF 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> AND<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
T.C.(C)No. 82 OF 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">1. Seven Writ Petitions and one Transferred
Case have been
taken up<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">together for consideration in view of the commonality of
the grounds and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">reliefs prayed for therein.
While in Writ Petition (C) No.
14 of 2013,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Saurabh Prakash Vs. Union of India, and Writ Petition (C) No. 90
of 2013,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Vinay K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, a
common prayer has
been made for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">declaration of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2000, as ultra vires the Constitution, in Writ Petition (C) No. 10
of 2013,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Salil Bali Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 85
of 2013, Krishna<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Deo Prasad Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C)
No. 42 of 2013, Kamal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Kumar Pandey & Sukumar Vs. Union of India and Writ Petition
(C) No. 182 of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2013, Hema Sahu Vs. Union of India, a common prayer
has inter alia
been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">made to strike down the provisions of Section 2(k) and
(l) of the
above<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Act, along with a prayer to bring
the said Act
in conformity with
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provisions of the Constitution and to direct the Respondent
No. 1
to take<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">steps to make changes in
the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000, to bring it in line with the United
Nations Standard<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Minimum Rules for administration of juvenile justice. In
addition to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">above, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2013, Shilpa Arora Sharma
Vs. Union<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of India, a prayer has inter alia been made to appoint a
panel of
criminal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">psychologists to determine through clinical methods whether the
juvenile is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">involved in the Delhi gang rape on 16.12.2012. Yet,
another relief which<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">has been prayed for in common during the oral submissions made on
behalf of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Petitioners was that in offences like rape and murder,
juveniles should<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">be tried under the
normal law and
not under the
aforesaid Act and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">protection granted to persons up to the age of 18 years under
the aforesaid<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Act may be removed and that the investigating agency should be
permitted to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">keep the record of the juvenile offenders to take preventive measures
to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">enable them to detect
repeat offenders and
to bring them
to justice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Furthermore, prayers have also been made in Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 6 of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2013 and Writ Petition (C) No.
85 of 2013,
which are personal
to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juvenile accused in the Delhi gang rape case of 16.12.2012,
not to
release<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">him and to keep him in custody or any place of strict detention,
after he<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was found to be a mentally abnormal psychic
person and that
proper and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">detailed investigation be conducted by the CBI to ascertain his
correct age<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">by examining his school documents and other records and to further
declare<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that prohibition in Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of Children) Act, 2000, be declared unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2. In most of the
matters, the Writ Petitioners appeared in-person, in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">support of their individual cases.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">3. Writ Petition (C)
No.10 of 2013, filed by
Shri Salil Bali,
was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">taken up as the first matter in the bunch. The
Petitioner appearing in-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">person urged that it was necessary for the provisions of Section
2(k), 2(l)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to be reconsidered in the light of the spurt
in criminal offences
being<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">committed by persons within the range of 16 to 18 years, such as
the gang<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rape of a young woman inside
a moving vehicle
on 16th December,
2012,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">wherein along with others, a juvenile, who had
attained the age
of 17=<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years, was being tried separately
under the provisions
of the Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">4. Mr. Bali submitted
that the age of responsibility, as accepted
in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">India, is different from what has been accepted by other countries
of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">world. But, Mr.
Bali also pointed
out that even
in the criminal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">jurisprudence
prevalent in India,
the age of
responsibility of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">understanding the consequences of one's actions had been recognized
as 12<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years in the Indian Penal Code.
Referring to Section 82 of
the Code, Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Bali pointed out that the same provides that nothing is an offence
which is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">done by a child under seven
years of age.
Mr. Bali also
referred to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Section 83 of the Code, which provides that nothing is an
offence which is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">done by a child above seven years of age and
under twelve, who
has not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">attained sufficient maturity
of understanding to
judge the nature
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">consequences of his conduct on a particular occasion. Mr. Bali,
therefore,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">urged that even
under the Indian
Criminal Jurisprudence the
age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">understanding has been fixed at twelve years, which according to
him, was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">commensurate with the thinking
of other countries,
such as the
United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">States of America, Great Britain and Canada.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">5. In regard to Canada,
Mr. Bali referred
to the Youth
Criminal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice Act, 2003, as amended from time to time, where the
age of
criminal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">responsibility has been fixed at twelve years. Referring to Section 13 of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Criminal Code of Canada, Mr. Bali submitted that the same
is in pari<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">materia with the provisions of Section 83 of the
Indian Penal Code.
In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">fact, according to the Criminal Justice Delivery System in
Canada, a youth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">between the age of 14 to 17 years may be tried and sentenced as an
adult in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">certain situations. Mr.
Bali also pointed out that
even in Canada
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Youth Criminal Justice
Act governs the
application of criminal
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">correctional law to those who are twelve years old or older, but
younger<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">than 18 at the time of committing the offence, and that,
although, trials<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">were to take place in a Youth Court, for certain offences
and in certain<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">circumstances, a youth may be awarded an adult sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">6. Comparing the position in
USA and the
Juvenile Justice and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Delinquency Prevention Act, 1974, he urged that while in several
States, no<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">set standards have been provided, reliance is placed on the
common law age<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of seven in fixing the age of criminal responsibility, the lowest
being six<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years in North Carolina.
The general practice in
the United States
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">America, however, is that even for such children, the courts
are entitled<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to impose life sentences in respect of certain types of
offences, but such<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">life sentences without parole were not permitted for those under
the age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">eighteen years convicted of murder or offences involving violent
crimes and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">weapons violations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">7. In England and
Wales, children accused
of crimes are
generally<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">tried under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as amended
by Section<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">16(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. Under
the said laws,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the minimum age of criminal responsibility in
England and Wales
is ten<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years and those below the said age are considered to be doli
incapax and,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">thus, incapable of having any mens rea, which is similar to the
provisions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of Sections 82 and 83 of Indian Penal Code.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">8. Mr. Bali has also
referred to the legal circumstances prevailing
in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">other parts of the world wherein the age
of criminal responsibility has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">been fixed between ten to sixteen years. Mr. Bali contended that there was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">a general worldwide concern over the rising graph of criminal
activity of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles below the
age of eighteen
years, which has
been accepted<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">worldwide to be the age limit under which all persons were to be
treated as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children. Mr. Bali
sought to make
a distinction in
regard to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">definition of children as such in Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of
the Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000,
and the level
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">maturity of the child who is capable of understanding the
consequences of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">his actions. He,
accordingly, urged that the provisions of Sections 15 and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">16 of the Act needed
to be reconsidered
and appropriate orders
were<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">required to be passed in regard to the level of punishment
in respect of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">heinous offences committed by children below the
age of eighteen
years,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">such as murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Mr.
Bali submitted that
allowing<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">perpetrators of such crimes to get off with a sentence of
three years at<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the maximum, was not justified and a correctional course was
required to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">undertaken in that regard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">9. Mr. Saurabh Prakash,
Petitioner in Writ Petition
(C) No. 14 of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2013, also appeared in-person and, while endorsing the
submissions made by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Mr. Bali, went a step further in suggesting that in view of the
provisions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of Sections 15 and 16 of
the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000, children, as defined in the above Act, were
not only<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">taking advantage of the same, but were also being
used by criminals
for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">their own ends. The
Petitioner reiterated Mr. Bali's submission that after<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">being awarded a maximum sentence of three years, a
juvenile convicted of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">heinous offences, was almost likely to become a monster in society
and pose<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">a great danger to others, in view of his criminal propensities. Although,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in the prayers to the Writ Petition, one of the reliefs prayed
for was
for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">quashing the provisions of the entire Act, Mr. Saurabh
Prakash ultimately<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">urged that some of the provisions thereof were such as could be
segregated<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and struck down so as to preserve the Act as a whole. The Petitioner urged<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that, under Article 21 of the Constitution, every citizen has
a fundamental<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">right to live in dignity and peace, without being subjected
to violence by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">other members of society and that by shielding juveniles,
who were fully<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">capable of
understanding the consequences
of their actions,
from the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">sentences, as could be awarded under the
Indian Penal Code,
as far as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">adults are concerned, the State was creating a class of citizens
who were<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">not only prone to criminal activity, but
in whose cases
restoration or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rehabilitation was not possible.
Mr. Saurabh Prakash submitted
that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provisions of Sections 15
and 16 of
the Juvenile Justice
(Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
violated the rights
guaranteed to a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution and
were, therefore, liable<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to be struck down.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">10. Mr. Saurabh Prakash
also submitted that the provisions of
Section<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">19 of the Act, which provided for removal of disqualification attaching
to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">conviction, were also illogical and were liable to be struck
down. It was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that in order to prevent repeated offences by an
individual, it<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was necessary to maintain the
records of the
inquiry conducted by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice Board, in relation to juveniles so that such
records would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">enable the authorities concerned to assess the criminal
propensity of an<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">individual, which would call for a different approach to be
taken at the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">time of inquiry. Mr. Saurabh
Prakash urged this Court to give a direction<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to the effect that the Juvenile
Justice Board or
courts or other
high<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">public authorities would have the discretion to direct that in
a particular<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">case, the provisions of the general law would apply to a juvenile
and not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">those of the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">11. Mr. Vivek
Narayan Sharma, learned
Advocate, appeared for
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2013, filed by one
Shilpa Arora<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Sharma, and submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board should be
vested with<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the discretion to impose
punishment beyond three
years, as limited
by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2000, in cases where a child, having full knowledge of the consequences
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">his/her actions, commits a
heinous offence punishable
either with life<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">imprisonment or death. Mr.
Sharma submitted that such
a child did
not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">deserve to be treated as a child and be allowed to
re-mingle in society,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">particularly when the identity of the child is to be kept
a secret under<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Sections 19 and 21
of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and
Protection of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000. Mr.
Sharma submitted that
in many cases
children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">between the ages of
sixteen to eighteen
years were, in
fact, being<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">exploited by adults to commit heinous offences who knew full
well that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">punishment therefor would not exceed three years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">12. Mr. Sharma
urged that without
disturbing the other
beneficient<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2000, some of the gray areas pointed out
could be addressed
in such a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">manner as would make the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Act, 2000, more effective and prevent the misuse thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">13. In Writ Petition (C)
No. 85 of 2013, filed by Krishna Deo
Prasad,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Dr. R.R. Kishor appeared for the Petitioner and gave a
detailed account of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the manner in which
the Juvenile Justice
Delivery System had
evolved.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Referring to the doctrine of doli incapax, rebuttable presumption
and adult<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">responsibility, Dr. Kishor
contended that even
Article 1 of
the UN<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Convention on the Rights of the Child defines
a child in the following<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">terms:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> "Article 1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> For the purposes
of the present Convention, a child means
every<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> human being below
the age of eighteen years unless under the law<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> applicable to the
child, majority is attained earlier."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">14. Dr. Kishor contended
that, as pointed out by Mr. Salil
Bali, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">expression "child" has been defined in various ways
in different countries<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">all over the world.
Accordingly, the definition of a child in Section 2(k)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">depend on the existing laws in India defining a child. Dr. Kishor
referred<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to the provisions of the Child
Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">1986, as an example, to indicate that children up to the
age of fourteen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years were treated differently from children between the ages
of fourteen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to eighteen, for the purposes of employment in hazardous
industries. Dr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Kishor re-asserted the submissions
made by Mr.
Bali and Mr.
Saurabh<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Prakash, in regard to heinous crimes committed by children below
the age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">eighteen years, who were capable of understanding the consequences
of their<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">acts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">15. Dr. Kishor also
referred to the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Indian Penal Code, where the age of
responsibility and comprehension<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">has been fixed at twelve years and below. Learned
counsel submitted that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">having regard to the above-mentioned provisions,
it would have
to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">seriously considered as
to whether the
definition of a
child in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, required<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">reconsideration. He urged
that because a person under the age of
18 years<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was considered to be a child,
despite his or
her propensity to
commit<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">criminal offences, which are of a heinous and even gruesome
nature, such as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">offences punishable under Sections 376, 307, 302, 392,
396, 397 and
398<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">IPC, the said provisions have been misused and exploited by
criminals and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">people having their own
scores to settle.
Dr. Kishor urged
that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">definition of a "juvenile" or a "child"
or a
"juvenile in conflict
with<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">law", in Sections
2(k) and 2(l)
of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, was
liable to be
struck down and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">replaced with a more
meaningful definition, which
would exclude such<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">16. Mr. Vikram Mahajan,
learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Petitioner, Vinay K. Sharma, in Writ Petition (C) No.
90 of 2013,
urged<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that the right given
to a citizen
of India under
Article 21 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution is impinged upon by the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of Children) Act, 2000. Mr.
Mahajan urged that the Juvenile
Justice (Care<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, operates in violation of
Articles 14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and 21 of the Constitution and that Article 13(2), which
relates to post<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution laws, prohibits the State from making a law which
either takes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">away totally or abrogates in part a fundamental right.
Referring to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of
Violence against Women,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">adopted by the General Assembly on 20th December, 1993, Mr.
Mahajan pointed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">out that Article 1 of the Convention describes "violence
against women" to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">mean any act of gender-based violence that results
in, or is
likely to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or
suffering to women.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Referring to the alleged gang rape of a 23 year old
para-medical student,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in a moving bus, in Delhi, on 16th December, 2012,
Mr. Mahajan tried
to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">indicate that crimes committed by juveniles had reached large
and serious<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">proportions and that there was a need to amend the law to
ensure that such<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">persons were not given the benefit of lenient punishment,
as contemplated<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Act, 2000. From the figures
cited by him, he urged
that even going
by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">statistics, 1% of the total number of crimes committed in the
country would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">amount to a large number and the remedy to such a problem would
lie in
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which made the provisions of
the Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
redundant and ultra<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">vires Article 21 of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">17. Ms. Shweta Kapoor
appeared in Transferred Case No. 82
of 2013 in-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">person and questioned the
vires of Sections
16(1), 19(1), 49(2)
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">52(2)(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children)
Act,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2000, and submitted that they were liable to be declared as ultra
vires the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution. Referring to
Section 16 of the aforesaid
Act, Ms. Kapoor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that even in
the proviso to
Sub-section (1) of
Section 16,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Parliament had recognized
the distinction between
a juvenile, who
had<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">attained the age of sixteen years, but had committed an offence
which was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">so serious in nature that it
would not be
in his interest
or in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">interest of other juveniles in a special home, to send him to such
special<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">home. Considering that
none of the other measures provided under
the Act<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was suitable or sufficient,
the Government had empowered the Board to pass<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">an order for the juvenile to be kept in such place of safety
and in such<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">manner as it thought fit.
Ms. Kapoor submitted that no objection
could be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">taken to the said provision except for the fact
that in the
proviso to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Section 16(2), it has been added that the period of detention
order would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">not exceed, in any case, the maximum limit of punishment, as
provided under<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Section 15, which is three years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">18. Ms. Kapoor contended
that while the
provisions of the
Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
are generally meant<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">for the benefit of the juvenile offenders, a serious attempt
would have to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">be made to
grade the nature
of offences to
suit the reformation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">contemplated by the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">19. As part of her
submissions, Ms. Kapoor referred to the
decision of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">this Court in Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC
321], wherein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the pasting of black films on glass panes were
banned by this
Court on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">account of the fact that partially opaque glass panes on
vehicles acted as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">facilitators of crime. Ms.
Kapoor urged that in the opening paragraph
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the judgment, it has been observed that "Alarming rise
in heinous crimes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">like kidnapping, sexual assault on women and dacoity have impinged
upon the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">right to life and the right to live in a safe environment
which are within<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India". Ms. Kapoor
also<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">referred to another decision of this Court in Abuzar Hossain Vs.
State of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489],
which dealt with
a different question<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">regarding the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the right of an accused to
raise the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">claim of juvenility at any stage of the
proceedings and even
after the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">final disposal of the case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">20. In conclusion, Ms.
Kapoor reiterated her
stand that in
certain<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">cases the definition of
a juvenile in
Sections 2(k) and
2(l) of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
would have to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">be considered differently.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">21. The next matter
which engaged our
attention is Writ
Petition<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">(Civil) No.90 of 2013 filed
by one Vinay
Kumar Sharma, praying
for a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">declaration that the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of
Children)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Act, 2000, be declared
ultra vires the
Constitution and that
children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">should also be tried along with adults under the penal laws
applicable to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">adults.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">22. Writ Petition
(Civil) No.42 of 2013 has been filed
by Kamal Kumar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Pandey and Sukumar, Advocates,
inter alia, for
an appropriate writ
or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">direction declaring the provisions of Sections
2(1), 10 and
17 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">irrational, arbitrary, without reasonable nexus and thereby ultra
vires and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">unconstitutional, and for a Writ of Mandamus
commanding the Ministry
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India, to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">take steps that
the aforesaid Act
operates in conformity
with the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution. In addition,
a prayer was made to declare the
provisions of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Sections 15 and 19 of the above Act ultra vires the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">23. The main thrust
of the argument
advanced by Mr.
Pandey, who<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">appeared in person, was the
inter-play between International
Conventions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and Rules, such as the Beijing Rules, 1985,
the U.N. Convention
on the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Rights of the Child, 1989, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000. While
admitting the salubirous
and benevolent and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">progressive character of the legislation in dealing with children
in need<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of care and protection and with children in conflict with law,
Mr. Pandey<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">contended that a distinction was required to be made in respect
of children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">with a propensity to
commit heinous crimes
which were a
threat to a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">peaceful social order. Mr.
Pandey reiterated the submissions
made earlier<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that it was unconstitutional to place all juveniles,
irrespective of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">gravity of the offences, in
one bracket. Urging that Section
2(l) of
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
ought not to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">have placed all children in conflict with law within the same bracket,
Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Pandey submitted that
the same is
ultra vires Article
21 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution. Referring to
the report of the National Crime Records
Bureau<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">(NCRB) for the years 2001 to 2011, Mr. Pandey submitted that
between 2001<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and 2011, the involvement of juveniles in
cognizable crimes was
on the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rise. Mr. Pandey
urged that it
was a well-established medical-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">psychological fact that the level of understanding of a 16
year-old was at<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">par with that of adults.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">24. Mr. Pandey's next
volley was directed towards Section
19 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000,
which<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provides for the removal of any disqualification attached to
an offence of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">any nature. Mr. Pandey
submitted that the said provisions do not take
into<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">account the fact relating
to repeated offences
being perpetrated by a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juvenile whose records of
previous offences are
removed. Mr. Pandey<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">contended that Section 19 of the Act was required to be amended
to enable<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the concerned authorities to retain records of previous offences
committed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">by a juvenile for the purposes
of identification of
a juvenile with a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">propensity to repeatedly commit offences of a grievous or heinous
nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">25. Mr. Pandey submitted
that Parliament had exceeded its
mandate by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">blindly adopting eighteen as the upper limit in categorising
a juvenile or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">a child, in
accordance with the
Beijing Rules, 1985,
and the U.N.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Convention, 1989, without taking into account the
socio-cultural economic<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">conditions and the legal system for administration of criminal
justice in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">India. Mr. Pandey urged
that the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000, was
required to operate
in conformity with
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provisions of the Constitution of India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">26. Ms. Hema Sahu, the
petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
182 of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">2013, also appeared in person and restated the views expressed by
the other<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">petitioners that the
United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Administration of Juvenile Justice, commonly known as the "Beijing
Rules",<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">recognized and noted the difference in the nature of offences committed
by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles in conflict with law.
Referring to the decision of this Court
in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the case commonly known as the "Bombay Blasts
Case", Ms. Sahu
submitted<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that a juvenile who was tried and convicted along
with adults under
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), was denied
the protection<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000,
on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">account of the serious nature of the offence. Ms. Sahu ended on
the note<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that paragraph 4 of the 1989 Convention did not make any reference
to age.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">27. Appearing for the
Union of India, the Additional Solicitor
General,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Mr. Siddharth Luthra, strongly opposed the submissions made
on behalf of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Petitioners to either declare the entire
Juvenile Justice (Care
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as ultra vires the Constitution
or parts<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">thereof, such as Sections
2(k), 2(l), 15,
16, 17, 19
and 21. After<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">referring to the aforesaid provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, the
learned ASG submitted
that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Parliament consciously fixed eighteen years as
the upper age
limit for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">treating persons as juveniles and children, taking into
consideration the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">general trend of legislation,
not only internationally, but
within the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">country as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">28. The learned ASG submitted
that the Juvenile
Justice (Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was enacted after years of deliberation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and in conformity with international standards as laid
down in the
U.N.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, the Beijing Rules,
1985, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Havana Rules and other
international instruments for
securing the best<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">interests of the child with the primary object of social
reintegration of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">child victims and children
in conflict with
law, without resorting
to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">conventional judicial proceedings which existed for
adult criminals. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the course of his submissions, the learned ASG submitted
a chart of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">various Indian statutes and the manner in which children have
been excluded<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">from liability under the said Acts upto the age of 18 years. In
most of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">said enactments, a juvenile/child has been referred
to a person
who is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">below 18 years of age. The
learned ASG submitted
that in pursuance
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">international obligations, the Union of India after
due deliberation had<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">taken a conscious policy decision to fix the age of a
child/juvenile at the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">upper limit of 18 years.
The learned ASG urged that the fixing of
the age<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">when a child ceases to be a child at 18 years is a matter of
policy which<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">could not be questioned in a court of law, unless the same could
be shown<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to have violated any of the fundamental rights, and in particular
Articles<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Referring to the decision of this
Court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">BALCO Employees Union Vs. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC
333], the learned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">ASG submitted that at
paragraph 46 of
the said judgment
it had been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">observed that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor
the scope<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as
to whether a
particular<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">public policy was wise or whether something better could be
evolved. It was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">further observed that the Courts were reluctant to strike down
a policy
at<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the behest of a Petitioner
merely because it
has been urged
that a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more
scientific or more<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">logical. The learned
ASG further urged
that Article 15(3)
of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution empowers the State to enact special provisions for
women and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children, which reveals that the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000,
was in conformity
with the provisions
of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">29. The learned ASG
submitted that in various judgments, this Court
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the High Courts had recognised the fact that juveniles were
required to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">treated differently from adults so as to give such children, who
for some<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">reason had gone astray, an opportunity to realize
their mistakes and to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rehabilitate themselves and rebuild their lives. Special mention was
made<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">with regard to the decision of this Court in Abuzar Hossain
(supra) in this<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">regard. The learned ASG
also referred to the decision of this
Court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder [(2011) 8 SCC 737],
wherein it had<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">been observed that merely because the law
causes hardships or
sometimes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">results in adverse consequences, it cannot be held to be
ultra vires the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution, nor can it be struck down. The
learned ASG also
submitted<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that it was now well-settled that reasonable classification is
permissible<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">so long as such classification has a rational nexus with the object
sought<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to be achieved. This Court
has always held that the presumption
is always<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment,
since it has
to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">assumed that the
legislature understands and
correctly appreciates the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">needs of its own people
and its discriminations are
based on adequate<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">30. Referring to the
Reports of the
National Crime Reports
Bureau,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">learned ASG pointed out that the percentage of increase in
the number of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">offences committed by
juveniles was almost
negligible and the
general<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">public perception in such matters was entirely
erroneous. In fact,
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">learned ASG pointed out that even the Committee
appointed to review
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">amendments to the criminal law, headed by former CJI, J.S.
Verma, in its<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">report submitted on 23rd January, 2013, did not recommend the reduction
in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the age of juveniles in conflict with law
and has maintained
it at 18<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years. The learned ASG
pointed out that the issue of reduction in
the age<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of juveniles from 18 to 16 years, as it was in the Juveniles
Justice Act of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">1986, was also raised in the Lok Sabha on
19th March, 2013,
during the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">discussion on the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013, but
was rejected by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the House.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">31. The learned ASG
submitted that the occurrence of 16th
December, 2012,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">involving the alleged gang rape of
a 23 year
old girl, should
not be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">allowed to colour the decision taken to treat all persons below
the age
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">18 years, as children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">32. Mr. Anant Asthana,
learned Advocate appearing for HAQ :
Centre for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Child Rights, submitted that the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000, as amended in 2006 and 2011, is a
fairly progressive<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">legislation, largely compliant
with the Constitution
of India and
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">minimum standards contained in the Beijing Rules.
Mr. Asthana contended<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that the reason for incidents such as the 16th
December, 2012, incident,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was not on account of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, but
on account<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of failure of the administration in implementing its
provisions. Learned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">counsel submitted that all the Writ Petitions appeared to be based
on two<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">assumptions, namely, (i) that the age of 18
years for juveniles
is set<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">arbitrarily; and (ii) that by reducing the age for the
purpose of defining<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">a child in the aforesaid Act, criminality amongst
children would reduce.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Mr. Asthana submitted that such an
approach was flawed
as it had
been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">incorrectly submitted that the age of 18 years to treat persons
as children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was set arbitrarily and that it is so difficult to
comprehend the causes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and the environment which brings
children into delinquency.
Mr. Asthana<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that the answer lies in effective and sincere
implementation of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the different laws aimed at improving the conditions of children
in need of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">care and protection and providing such protection to children
at risk.
Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Asthana urged that the objective with which the Juvenile
Justice (Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was enacted was not aimed at
delivering<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">retributive justice, but to
allow a rehabilitative, reformation-oriented<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">approach in addressing juvenile crimes. Learned counsel
submitted that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">apathy of the administration towards juveniles and the manner in
which they<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">are treated would be evident from the fact that by falsifying
the age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles, they were treated as adults and sent to jails,
instead of being<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">produced before the
Juvenile Justice Board
or even before
the Child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Welfare Committees to be dealt with in a manner provided
by the Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, for the
treatment of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">33. Mr. Asthana
submitted that even as recently as 26th
April, 2013,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Government of India has adopted a new
National Policy for
Children,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">which not only recognises that a child is
any person below the age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">eighteen years, but also states that the policy was
to guide and
inform<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">people of laws, policies, plans
and programmes affecting
children. Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Asthana urged that all actions and initiatives of the national,
State and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">local Governments in all sectors must respect and uphold the
principles and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provisions of this policy and it would neither be appropriate nor
possible<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">for the Union of India to adopt a different approach
in the matter.
Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Asthana, who appears to
have made an
in-depth study of
the matter,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that on the question of making the
provisions in the
Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act,
2000, conform to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provisions of the Constitution and to allow the children of a specific
age<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">group to be treated as adults, it would be
appropriate to take
note of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">General Comment No.10 made by the U.N. Committee on the rights of
the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">on 25th April, 2007, which specifically dealt with the upper
age limit for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles and it was reiterated that where it was a case of a
child being<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in need of care and protection or in conflict with law, every person
under<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the age of 18 years at the time of commission of the alleged
offence must<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">be treated in accordance with
the Juvenile Justice
Rules. Mr. Asthana<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that any attempt to alter the upper limit of the
age of
a child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">from 18 to 16 years would have disastrous consequences and would
set back<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the attempts made
over the years
to formulate a
restorative and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rehabilitative approach
mainly for juveniles in conflict with law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">34. In Writ Petition
(Civil) No.85 of 2013, a
counter affidavit has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">been filed on behalf
of the Ministry
of Women and
Child Development,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Government of India, in
which the submissions
made by the
ASG, Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Siddharth Luthra, were
duly reflected. In
paragraph I of
the said<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">affidavit, it has been pointed out
that the Juvenile
Justice (Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, provides for a wide range
of reformative<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">measures under Sections 15 and 16 for children in conflict with
law -
from<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">simple warning to 3 years of institutionalisation in a
Special Home. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">exceptional cases, provision has also been made for the juvenile
to be sent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to a place of safety where
intensive rehabilitation measures,
such as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">counselling, psychiatric evaluation and treatment would be
undertaken.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">35. In Writ Petition (C)
No.10 of 2013 filed by Shri
Salil Bali, an<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">application had been made
by the Prayas
Juvenile Aid Centre
(JAC), a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Society whose Founder and General Secretary, Shri Amod Kanth,
was allowed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to appear and address the Court in person. Mr. Amod Kanth claimed that
he<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was a former member of the Indian Police Service
and Chairperson of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Delhi Commission for the
Protection of Child
Rights and was
also the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">founder General Secretary of the aforesaid organisation,
which came into<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">existence in 1998 as a special unit associated
with the Missing
Persons<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Squad of the Crime and Railway Branch of the Delhi
Police of which
Shri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Amod Kanth was the in-charge Deputy Commissioner of Police. Mr. Amod
Kanth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that Prayas was created in order
to identify and support the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">missing and found
persons, including girls,
street migrants, homeless,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">working and delinquent children who did
not have any support
from any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">organisation in the
Government or in
the non-governmental organisation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">sector.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">36. Mr. Kanth
repeated and reiterated
the submissions made
by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">learned ASG and Mr. Asthana and
also highlighted the
problems faced by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children both in conflict with law and in need of care and
protection. Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Kanth submitted that
whatever was required
to be done
for the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rehabilitation and restoration of juveniles to a normal existence
has, to a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">large extent, been defeated since the various provisions
of the Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the
Rules of
2007,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">were not being seriously
implemented. Mr. Kanth
urged that after
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">ratification by India of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Child on 11th December, 1992, serious thought was given to the
enactment of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children Act), 2000,
which<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">came to replace the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Taking a leaf
out of Mr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Asthana's book, Mr. Kanth submitted that even after thirteen years
of its<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">existence, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children) Act, 2000, still remained unimplemented
in major areas,
which<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">made it impossible
for the provisions
of the Act
to be properly<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">coordinated. Mr. Kanth
submitted that one of the more important
features<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of juvenile law
was to provide
a child-friendly approach
in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">adjudication and disposition of matters in the best
interest of children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and for their
ultimate rehabilitation through
various institutions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">established under the Act.
Submitting that the Juvenile Justice
(Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
was based on
the provisions of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Indian Constitution, the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Child, 1989, the
Beijing Rules and
the United Nations
Rules for the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of the Juveniles Deprived of
their Liberty, 1990,
Mr. Kanth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">urged that the same was in
perfect harmony with
the provisions of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution, but did not receive the attention it ought to
have received<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">while dealing with a section of the citizens of India comprising
42% of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">country's population.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">37. Various measures to
deal with juveniles in conflict
with law have<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">been suggested by Mr. Kanth, which requires serious thought
and avoidance<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of knee-jerk reactions to situations which could set a
dangerous trend and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">affect millions of children in need of care and
protection. Mr. Kanth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">submitted that any change in the law, as it now stands,
resulting in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">reduction of age
to define a
juvenile, will not
only prove to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">regressive, but would also adversely affect India's image as
a champion of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">human rights.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">38. Having regard to the
serious nature of the issues raised before
us,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">we have given serious thought to the submissions advanced on
behalf of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">respective parties and
also those advanced
on behalf of
certain Non-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Government Organizations and have
also considered the
relevant extracts<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">from the Report of Justice
J.S. Verma Committee
on "Amendments to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Criminal Law" and are
convinced that the
Juvenile Justice (Care
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended in
2006, and the
Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, are based
on sound<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">principles recognized internationally and contained in
the provisions of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Indian Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">39. There is little doubt
that the
incident, which occurred
on the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">night of 16th December, 2012, was not only gruesome, but almost
maniacal in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">its content, wherein one juvenile, whose role is yet to be
established, was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">involved, but such an incident, in comparison to the vast
number of crimes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">occurring in India, makes it an aberration rather than the Rule.
If what<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">has come out from the reports of the Crimes Record Bureau,
is true, then<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the number of crimes committed
by juveniles comes
to about 2%
of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">country's crime rate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">40. The learned ASG
along with Mr. Asthana
and Mr. Kanth,
took us<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">through the history of the enactment of
the Juvenile Justice
(Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of
Children) Act, 2000,
and the Rules
subsequently framed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">thereunder in 2007. There
is a definite thought process,
which went into<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the enactment of the aforesaid Act. In order to appreciate the submissions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">made on behalf of the respective parties in regard to the
enactment of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">aforesaid Act and
the Rules, it
may be appropriate
to explore the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">background of the laws relating to child protection in
India and in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">rest of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">41. It cannot
be questioned that
children are amongst
the most<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">vulnerable sections in any society. They represent almost one-third of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">world's population, and unless they are provided with proper opportunities,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the opportunity of making them grow into responsible citizens
of tomorrow<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">will slip out of the
hands of the
present generation. International<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">community has been alive
to the problem
for a long
time. After the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">aftermath of the First World War, the League of Nations issued
the Geneva<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1924. Following the
gross abuse<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and violence of human rights during the Second World War,
which caused the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">death of millions of people, including children,
the United Nations
had<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">been formed in 1945 and on 10th December, 1948 adopted and
proclaimed the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While
Articles 1 and 7 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Declaration proclaimed that all human beings are born
free and equal
in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">dignity and rights and are
equal before the
law, Article 25
of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Declaration specifically provides that motherhood and
childhood would be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">entitled to special care and assistance. The growing consciousness of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">world community was further evidenced by the Declaration of the
Rights of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Child, which came to
be proclaimed by
the United Nations
on 20th<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">November, 1959, in the best interests of the child. This
was followed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Beijing Rules of 1985, the Riyadh Guidelines of 1990,
which specially<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">provided guidelines for the prevention of
juvenile delinquency, and
the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Havana Rules of 14th December, 1990. The said three sets of Rules intended<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that social policies should be
evolved and applied
to prevent juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">delinquency, to
establish a Juvenile
Justice System for
juveniles in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">conflict with law, to safeguard fundamental rights and to
establish methods<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">for social re-integration of young people who had suffered
incarceration in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">prison or other corrective institutions. One of the other principles which<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was sought to be reiterated and adopted was that a juvenile should
be dealt<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">with for an offence in a manner which is
different from an adult. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Beijing Rules indicated that efforts should be made by member countries
to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">establish within their own national jurisdiction, a set of laws
and rules<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">specially applicable to juvenile offenders. It was stated that the age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">criminal responsibility in legal systems that recognize the
concept of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">age of criminal responsibility for juveniles should not be fixed
at too low<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">an age-level, keeping in
mind the emotional, mental
and intellectual<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">maturity of children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">42. Four years after the
adoption of the
Beijing Rules, the
United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Nations adopted the Convention
on the Rights
of the Child
vide the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Resolution of the General Assembly No. 44/25
dated 20th November,
1989,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">which came into force on
2nd September, 1990.
India is not
only a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">signatory to the said Convention, but has also ratified the
same on 11th<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">December, 1992. The said
Convention sowed the seeds of the
enactment of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Indian Parliament.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">43. India developed its
own jurisprudence relating to children
and the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">recognition of their rights.
With the adoption of the Constitution on
26th<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">November 1949, constitutional safeguards, as far as weaker
sections of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">society, including
children, were provided
for. The Constitution
has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">guaranteed several rights to children, such as
equality before the
law,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">free and compulsory primary education to children between the
age group of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">six to fourteen years, prohibition
of trafficking and
forced labour of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children and
prohibition of employment
of children below
the age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">fourteen years in
factories, mines or
hazardous occupations. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Constitution enables the State Governments to make special
provisions for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children. To prevent female
foeticide, the Pre-conception and
Pre-natal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
Act was enacted
in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">1994. One of the latest
enactments by Parliament
is the Protection
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">44. The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">is in tune with
the provisions of
the Constitution and the
various<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Declarations and Conventions adopted by the world community represented
by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the United Nations. The
basis of fixing of the age
till when a
person<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">could be treated as a child at eighteen years in the Juvenile
Justice (Care<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was Article 1 of the
Convention of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the Rights of the Child, as was brought to our notice during
the hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Of course, it has been submitted by Dr.
Kishor that the
description in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Article 1 of the Convention was a contradiction in terms. While
generally<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">treating eighteen to be the age till which a person could be
treated to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">a child, it also indicates that the same was variable where
national laws<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">recognize the age of majority earlier. In this regard, one of
the other<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">considerations which weighed with the legislation
in fixing the
age of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">understanding at eighteen years is on account of the scientific
data that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">indicates that the brain continues to develop and the
growth of a
child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">continues till he reaches at least the age of eighteen years and
that it is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">at that point of time
that he can
be held fully
responsible for his<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">actions. Along with
physical growth, mental growth is equally
important,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in assessing the maturity of a person below the age of
eighteen years. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">this connection, reference may be made to the chart provided
by Mr.
Kanth,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">wherein the various laws relating to children generally recognize
eighteen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">years to be the age for reckoning a person as a juvenile/ child
including<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">criminal offences.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">45. In any event, in the
absence of any proper data, it would
not be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">wise on our part to deviate from the provisions
of the Juvenile
Justice<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which represent the collective<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">wisdom of Parliament. It
may not be out of place to mention that
in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, male children above the age
of sixteen years<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">were considered to be adults, whereas girl children were
treated as adults<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">on attaining the age of eighteen years. In the Juvenile Justice (Care
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, a
conscious decision was
taken by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Parliament to raise the age of male juveniles/children to eighteen
years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">46. In recent years,
there has been a spurt in criminal activities
by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">adults, but not so by juveniles, as the materials produced
before us show.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">The age limit which was
raised from sixteen
to eighteen years
in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is
a decision<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">which was taken by the Government, which is strongly in favour
of retaining<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Sections 2(k) and 2(l) in the manner in which
it exists in the Statute<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Book.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">47. One misunderstanding
of the
law relating to
the sentencing of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">juveniles, needs to be corrected.
The general understanding of
a sentence<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">that can be awarded to a juvenile under Section 15(1)(g) of
the Juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, prior to
its amendment<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in 2006, is that after attaining the age of eighteen years, a juvenile
who<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">is found guilty of a
heinous offence is
allowed to go
free. Section<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">15(1)(g), as it stood before
the amendment came
into effect from
22nd<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">August, 2006, reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
"15(1)(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be
sent to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> a special home
for a period of three years:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> (i) in case of
juvenile, over seventeen years
but less than<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> eighteen years of
age, for a period of not less than two years;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> (ii) in case of
any other juvenile for
the period until
he<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> ceases to be a
juvenile:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> Provided
that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> regard to the
nature of the offence and the circumstances of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> case, it is
expedient so to do, for reasons
to be recorded,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> reduce the period
of stay to such period as it thinks fit."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> It was generally
perceived that a juvenile was free to go,
even if<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">he had committed a heinous crime, when he ceased to be a juvenile.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> The said
understanding needs to be clarified
on account of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">amendment which came into force with effect from
22.8.2006, as a
result<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">whereof Section 15(1)(g) now reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> "Make an
order directing the juvenile to be sent
to a special<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> home for a period
of three years:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> Provided
that the Board may if it is satisfied that
having<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> regard to the
nature of the offence and the circumstances of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> case, it is
expedient so to do, for
reasons to be
recorded<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> reduce the period
of stay to such period as it thinks fit."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> The aforesaid
amendment now makes it clear that even if
a juvenile<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">attains the age of eighteen years within a period
of one year
he would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">still have to undergo a sentence of three years, which could
spill beyond<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the period of one year when he attained majority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">48. There is yet another
consideration which appears to
have weighed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">with the worldwide community, including India, to retain
eighteen as the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">upper limit to which persons could be treated as
children. In the
Bill<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">brought in Parliament for
enactment of the
Juvenile Justice (Care
and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act of 2000, it has been indicated
that the same<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">was being introduced to
provide for the
care, protection, treatment,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent
juveniles and for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the adjudication of
certain matters relating
to and disposition
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">delinquent juveniles.
The essence of
the Juvenile Justice
(Care and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder
in 2007,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">is restorative and not retributive, providing for
rehabilitation and re-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">integration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society.
The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding
of experts<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">in child psychology and behavioural patterns that
till such an
age the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children in conflict with law
could still be
redeemed and restored
to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">mainstream society,
instead of becoming
hardened criminals in
future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">There are, of course, exceptions where a child in the age
group of
sixteen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">to eighteen may have developed criminal propensities, which would
make it<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">virtually impossible for
him/her to be
re-integrated into mainstream<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">society, but such examples are not of such proportions as
to warrant any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">change in thinking, since it is probably better
to try and
re-integrate<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">children with criminal propensities into mainstream society,
rather than to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does
not augur well<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">for the future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">49. This being the
understanding of the Government behind the
enactment<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">the amendments effected thereto in 2006, together
with the Rules
framed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">thereunder in 2007, and the data available with regard to the
commission of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">heinous offences by children, within the meaning of Sections
2(k) and
2(l)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, we
do<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">not think that any interference is necessary with
the provisions of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">Statute till such time as
sufficient data is
available to warrant
any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">change in the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules. On
the other<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">hand, the implementation of the various enactments
relating to children,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">would possibly yield better results.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">50. The Writ Petitions and
the Transferred Case
are, therefore,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">dismissed, with the aforesaid observations. There
shall, however, be no<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">order as to costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">.........................................................CJI.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;"> (ALTAMAS KABIR)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">...............................................................J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">...............................................................J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 10pt;">
(J. CHELAMESWAR)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-68841769327069110332013-01-10T22:41:00.002-08:002013-01-10T22:41:58.514-08:00Child custody in Divorce proceeding under sec.26 of Hindu marriage act.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="doc_title" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="doc_title" style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="line-height: 24.366666793823242px;"><b>Child custody in Divorce proceeding under sec.26 of Hindu marriage act.</b></span></span></div>
<div class="doc_title" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="doc_title" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
Prabhati Mitra vs D.K. Mitra on 17 January, 1984</div>
<div class="doc_citations" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; margin-bottom: 5px; text-align: justify;">
Equivalent citations: 25 (1984) DLT 186</div>
<div class="doc_author" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
Author: A B Robatgi</div>
<div class="doc_bench" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; margin-bottom: 5px; text-align: justify;">
Bench: A B Rohatgi</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
JUDGMENT</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
Avadh Behari Robatgi, J.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(1) This unfortunate matter arises out of matrimonial differences. A girl of 14 and a boy of 11 are living with their mother. Their is a contest between the parents as to which should have their care and custody. Each is attacking the other. The guardian judge has decided that the minors should be transferred to the father's control. From that order mother appeals to this court.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(2) The appellant, Smt. Prabhati Mitra, is the mother of the children. The respondent, Shri D.K. Mitra, is their father. Their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by this court on 21.5.82. There are two children of the marriage. A daughter Sofia alias Bipasha, a girl 14 years of age. She was reading in 8th class in Lady Irwyn School. The other is a son. Raja alias Tanmoy, a boy 11 years of age. He was studying in 5th class in Frank Anthony School.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(3) Unfortunately the marriage of the parties came to grief. The mother left the house on 22.3.1980. On 25.7.1980 she made an application under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the two minor children. The father opposed. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.8.1982.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(4) On 24.5.1983 the mother went to the house of the father and met the children in his absence. They narrated their tale of woe to her. Moved by the story of their maltreatment and neglect, she brought them with her without obtaining any orders of the court. On 30th. May, 1983 she made an application to the Guardian Judge staling that when she went to see the children at the house of their father, they started weeping and insisted that she should take them with her as they were not happy in the father's house, She found it unbearably distressing to lew them behind. So the children accompanied her to her house. At present they are with the mother. She produced the children before the judge. They told the judge that they would like to live with the mother. The court allowed her custody of the children till an application is moved by the father.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(5) It appears that the father had gone out of India during those days. When he returned he did not find the children at home. He immediately made an application under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure statling that the children bad been removed from his custody forcibly and that it is not in the interest of the children to live with their mother. He sought the custody of the minors. By his order dated 21st July, 1983 the Guardian Judge decided this application in favor of the father. He made an order to the mother to hand over the custody of both the children to the father "forthwith".</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(6) The learned judge held that "the mother took the law in her own hands and removed the children from the custody of the father in his absence and such a course adopted by the mother cannot have any legal sanction." He was of the view that "the custody of the children with the mother is absolutely illegal". From this order granting custody to the father, the mother appeals to this court.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(7) It appears to me that the learned judge did not decide the case on merits. He mainly held that the wife had kidnapped the children from the legal custody of the father who was not unfit to retain their custody and therefore the children must be restored to the custody of the father. That is why at the end of his judgment he observed that it was open to the mother to claim custody and "she can apply afresh for obtaining custody of the children under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act" or by reviving the earlier proceedings she had launched in 1980.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(8) In the very beginning when I started hearing the appeal I told counsel for both parties that I will decide the case on merits and they can adduce such evidence before me as they thought proper. The parties have given evidence by affidavits. I have heard arguments at length. Written arguments have also been submitted by both parties.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(9) In my opinion the learned judge erred in concluding that he should make a peremptory order for the children's return to the father. He should have heard the case on its merits. It is true that the parents ought to be discouraged from taking the law into their own hands. The courts must set their face against kidnapping. If a child is in the mother's care and the father takes it away against her will, the proper course usually will be to restore it to her forthwith in the absence of any evidence that this is likely to harm the child. But the courts are now more anxious to consider the case on its merits. The courts are becoming increasingly reluctant to make peremptory orders and are now much readier to consider the merits. This appears to be the view of Supreme Court in <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/373752/" style="color: #1100cc;">Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor v. Varender Kapoor,</a> . The Punjab High Court had dismissed the mother's</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
petition for habeas corpus on the narrow ground that the custody of the child with the father was not illegal. The Supreme Court remitted the case to the High Court to take evidence and to consider the questions as to whether it was in the interest of the minor that its custody should be handed over to the mother, after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case. This new attitude to the question of custody suggests that I should investigate the merits of the rival claims of the parties and for this purpose I embarked on an inquiry after taking affidavit evidence.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(10) This was not a case of kidnapping, as the Judge thought. The mother informed the Nizamuddin Police Station about the fact of removal of children on that very day i.e. 24.5.1983. She produced them before the judge. She brought their distressing condition to his notice. He allowed the mother to retain custody. But the course adopted by the learned judge means initially moving the children from father to mother, then from mother to father by his order, and possibly from father to mother if the wife did as advised by the judge. So the children will virtually become playthings in the parental warfare. Like a rolling stone they will have no stability of home.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(11) "THE controlling consideration governing the custody of the children is the welfare of the children concerned and not the right of their parents." <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/270778/" style="color: #1100cc;">(Rosy Jacob v. Jacob,</a> ). It is well</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
settled that "in the matters concerning the custody of minor children, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor and not the legal right of this or that particular party." <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1271762/" style="color: #1100cc;">(Veena Kapoor v. Varender Kapoor</a> (supra) ).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(12) This is the paramount consideration. Other considerations must be subordinate. The mere desire of a parent to have his child must be subordinate to the consideration of the welfare of the child and can be effective only if it coincides with the welfare of the child. Consequently, it cannot be correct to talk of the pre-eminent position of parents, or of their exclusive right to the custody of their children, when the future welfare of those children is being considered by the court. What does this paramountcy of welfare means ? In the words of Lord Macdermott in J. v. C. (1970) Ac 668, 710 :</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"(THESEwords) must mean more than that the child's welfare is to be treated as the top item in a list of items relevant to the matter in question. I think they can note a process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents. risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the Child's welfare as that term has now to be understood. That is the first consideration because it is of the first importance and the paramount consideration because it rules upon or determines the course to be followed."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(13) The crux of the case is that father and the mother have now been divorced. They were married in 1968. Out of the wedlock these two children were born. Sofia was born on 22nd December, 1969. Raja was born on 23rd August, 1973. Later on their marital relations became estranged. The wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of her husband's cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Additional District Judge dismissed the petition. On appeal Goswani J. allowed the appeal of the wife holding the husband to be guilty of cruelty. He granted a decree of divorce in favor of the present appellant against the respondent. The custody proceedings are the outcome of this divorce litigation. One important fact which has to be constantly borne in mind is that after divorce the father remarried on 15.9.1982. The mother remains unmarried. She says that she does not intend to remarry.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(14) Of the problems resulting from the dissolution of marriage none is more serious than that of trying to ensure the future well being of the children. The size of the problem has assumed such an enormous proportion that each year thousands of children are affected by the divorce of their parents. While it is a general principle of law that in proceedings relating to the custody and upbringing of a child, the child's welfare is the first and foremost consideration, it is often the case-and should be openly admitted-that in divorce proceedings the welfare of the children of the marriage is in direct conflict with the desire- and the legal right-of one or both of the parents divorced. The very institution of divorce proceedings bodes ill for the children of the marriage. When the marriage breaks down their custody becomes the subject of a court order.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(15) In the forefront of his arguments counsel for the father said that the mother is living in adultery with one Mr. Vashisht and she is therefore disentitled to the custody of the children by reason of her moral character. For this he relies on the observations of Goswami J. in Prabhati Mitra v. D.K. Mitra. 1982 Hindu Law Reporter 397, 407.. What was argued before Goswami J. was that the wife had some sort of relationship with Mr. Vashisht. The wife denied this. The husband objected to the visits of Mr. Vashisht to their house. As a result there were quarrels between the husband and wife. The learned judge observed "in these circumstances, I feel that the learned trial judge was right in drawing the inference that the allegations of the respondent regarding the relationship of the petitioner and Mr. Vashisht were not without foundation or reckless and as such the said allegations cannot be termed as an act of cruelty". The learned judge was only concerned with the question whether the husband was cruel to the wife when he objected to the visits of Mr. Vashisht to the house. This point he decided in favor of the husband and held that on this count he was not cruel because his objection was not without foundation. I cannot read it as a positive finding of adultery against the wife. The wife alleged that Mr. Vashisht was like a brother to her. But she did not produce him in court. So it was held that the husband was not cruel to the wife when he objected to Vashisht's visits, whether frequent or spasmodic, and if as a result there were "unpleasant incidents" between the parties.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(16) The first and foremost consideration is the welfare of the minor. The rights and wishes of parents must be assessed and weighed in their bearing on the. welfare ofthe child in conjunction with all other factors relative to that issue. The mother's custody is preferred not because she has a paramount claim against other relations but because of the care and supervision that a mother who is not out at work can give to young children is a very important factor. The court may see the child privately and ascertain the wishes of a child if it is grown up. I talked to the children in my chamber twice-once on September 7, 1983 and a second time on October 13, 1983. They showed me their school record, their progress record and fee books. Both of them are studying in a good public school. They told me clearly and unambiguously that they were not willing to go to their father under any circumstances because they had been ill treated by their step mother. They complained of maltreatment by the stepmother and neglect by the father. They told me that they were given raw potatoes and onion to eat. They were not sent to school in clean and properly pressed school dress. They said that their stepmother in Calcutta threatened to drown them into sea if they did not leave her house.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(17) At this stage I must mention that the learned trial judge also had a private interview with the children. His impression was, however, different. He was of the view that the children had been "tutored" and "coaxed" to speak against their father so much so that they were not willing to talk to him. The children told the judge that their father will beat them for going away with their mother in his absence, To this the judge said :</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"To my mind this apprehension in the "minds of the children has been created by continuous poisoning from the side of the mother."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
From my talk with the children I did not have the impression that they had been tutored. They talked to me freely. As normal children, they seemed to me very happy with their mother. This was the dominant impression they left on my mind.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(18) It was said that the Father is employed in Trade Fair Authority on a decent salary, that he can give better education to the children, that they can be respectably brought up if custody is given to him. The fact that one claiment to the custody is in a position to give the child a better start in life than another does not give him a prior claim. It is the happiness of the child, not its material prospects, with which the court is concerned, and any other rule would automatically put a poor parent at a disadvantage. Obviously, however, a party's financial position cannot be ignored entirely, e.g. if he is so poor that he cannot provide home for his children, this in itself might be enough to refuse him actual custody. But again the quality of the home life that the child will have must not be measured in purely material terms : the amount of time and energy that a parent can devote to its care and upbringing is of considerable importance. This may mean that a mother who can spend the whole of her time with her children will necessarily have an advantage over the father who will be out at work all day, whatever alternative arrangements he can make to have them looked after. (See Re. K 1977 (1) All E.R. 647). Here the position is complicated by the fact that the father has remarried. Giving custody to the father will amount to giving custody to the stepmother. From the stepmother the children had maltreatment. From the father neglect. This was the experience of the past. The affidavits filed on behalf of-the mother and the children's report to me in private show that this was the state of things. It will be harsh to the children to repeat the old experiment. In the fact and circumstances of this case the husband is disentitled to the custody of the children. He has remarried. The new partner he has taken will care more for the children whom they bring into this world. Human nature is the same the world over.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(19) There is an affidavit by the stepmother as to her willingness and intention to look after the children and be a mother to them. I do not think a stepmother, however anxious to do her best for the children, can take the place of the mother. The mother is more likely to give the attention to the children that they need at this formative stage than a stepmother who, however anxious to perform her duties, will naturally be more interested to the needs of a child who is her own child. The order of the judge gives the custody to the father. So the mother is deprived of the care and control of the children. The children, too, are deprived of their mother's care. They will have the opportunity of a stepmother to care, but that is not always the same thing. Above all the children are not prepared to live with the stepmother.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(20) <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/845610/" style="color: #1100cc;">In Gohar Begum v. Suggi, the Supreme Court</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
applied the welfare principle and held that the mother, a muslim woman, and a singing girl by profession, was entitled to the custody of her minor illegitimate daughter of 6 years which was in the custody of her mother's sister. No matter who her father is, the Supreme Court said, the mother is entitled to the custody of the illegitimate daughter. The interest of the child will be better served if she is in the custody of the mother rather than her mother's sister, the court said.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(21) In Saraswatibai Ved v. Shripad Ved, Air 1941 Bombay 103 Beaumont Cj said:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"however the paramount consideration is the interest of the child, rather than the rights of the parents. Human nature is much the same all the world ever, and in my opinion if the mother is a suitable person to take charge of the child, it is quite impossible to find an "adequate subsitute for her for the custody of a child of tender years."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
He further observed:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"The modern view of the judges in England is that it is impossible, in the case of a young child, to find any adequate substitute for the love and care of the natural mother.--- The mother's position is regarded as of much more importance in modern times than it was in former days, when a wife was regarded as little more than the chattel of her husband."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
Wadia J. said:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"c of the minor has married again. That in itself may not be a ground for depriving him of the custody of bids minor child. But the court has got to consider all the circumstances of the case, and taking human nature as the same here as elsewhere, a stepmother cannot be expected to be very much interested in the welfare of a minor stepson, nor likely to give him the attention, love and sympathy which the child naturally reqauires."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(22) The courts in this country took this view in 1941. Now we have advanced much further. The position of women in society is much improved today. The modern trend is well represented by the Supreme Court decision in Gohar Begum where the mother, a singing girl, was held to be entitled to the custody of her illegitimate daughter. Regardless of the question who the father is, the court held that mother is preferable to any other near relation.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(23) In Balram Mandal v. Rajani Mandalain, the boy</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
was illtreated by the stepmother. The court said that if the boy is kept under the guardianship of the father, for all practical purposes, the stepmother will have full control over the boy. The court held that the natural mother was a better guardian than the stepmother.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(24) In Munnibai v. Dhanush, the father after divorce had remarried. The court held that there was probability of the minor child being neglected by the stepmother. It was held that the mother was entitled to the custody of the child as she had stated that she had no intention to marry again. The claim of the natural mother was preferred to the claim of the father in the matter of custody.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(25) The marriage of the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. This is the most important factor in this case. After divorce the question of custody, control and maintenance of the minor children of the marriage has now arisen. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the custody of the children:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"26.In any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and . education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(26) The wife ought to have petitioned under this section. This is the proper provision applicable to a broken home. All orders relating to "custody, maintenance, and education" of minor children are to be made "from time to time" and may be varied, suspended or discharged. They all automatically come to an end on the child's 18th birthday when he attains majority.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(27) The court can make provision "in the decree" and "after the decree", and from "time to time". The legislature has given full elasticity in the exercise of the court's power and it would be unwise to restrict this elasticity. So flexible are the powers of the judge. In effect the legislature is saying: "In such cases trust the judge." This flexibility is its greatest advantage. In ordinary circumstances no final order is ever made. "From time to time" it can be varied, suspended or superseded.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(28) The mother and father are fighting about the custody of the minor children. The court has to make such provisions-now that the decree of divorce has been passed-"as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible." If parents are divorced, arrangements have to be made about the children's upbringing. With whom are the children to live ? Who is to be empowered to take major decisions about their upbringing, for example, about their education ? If the children have their home with one parent, what arrangements are to be made to allow the other to preserve the relationship with them by visits, holidays and so on ? Who is to provide financially for the children ? These difficult questions arise.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(29) Where custody is contested between the parties, as here, other difficulties arise. Each of them is anxious to have custody, but it is open to question whether the contest always indicates that the parties are moved solely or even primarily by the desire to safeguard the children's interests. Passions are aroused in divorce and judgments distorted. One party may contest other's claim to custody from spiteful or selfish motives. The children are then in danger of becoming pawns in the struggle of wills. This case vividly illustrates it. In circumstances of this kind, the judge in deciding custody is in the end forced back to the test of welfare of the children. He strives to make the best arrangement which he can devise for the children in the new situation created by the dissolution of the marriage. The law is now infinitely more complex, largely because the welfare of the children has become a major concern of public policy transcending the "rights" of individual parents. This means more than that the courts will not enforce parental rights if to do so would not serve the children's interest. The legislature has given wide powers to the court to look after the welfare of the children. This indeed is one of the most difficult problems in family law.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(30) In the broadest sense, custody meant the sum total of the rights which a parent could exercise over his child. These rights continue until the child attains the age of 18. Over the years the father's primacy was reduced in three ways. First the Court in exercise of their paternal jurisdiction might interfere to deprive the father of some or all of his rights. This is the theory of Guardian and Wards Act 1890. Secondly, section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has made the mother's rights equal to those of the father. Thirdly, the courts have attached increasing importance to the welfare of the child rather than the rights of the parents. The paramount consideration in case of disputes between the father and the mother is the welfare of the child. Section 26 says that provision has to be made consistently with the wishes of the minors wherever possible. This shows that the court may disregard the rights of a parent if it finds that by having regard to their wishes it will be promoting the welfare of the children. The parent's rights can be suspended and superseded where it is shown that to do so will be in the interest of the minor. This is the key-note of the law relating to the exercise of parental rights and gowers, as it has developed over the centuries culminating in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Earlier cases indicate that effect will always be given to father's legal rights unless he had forfeited them by moral or cruel conduct or was seeking to enforce them capriciously or arbitrarily. The parental rights are on the decline. The welfare theory is on the ascendant.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(31) In this age of equality of sexes the effect of legislation and judge-made law is to whittle down the father's rights and also to give the mother positive rights to custody which in earlier days the law did not accord to her. In the cascade of legislation passed in the fifties of this century e.g. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hinnu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the Mindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, the legislature has touched upon the subject of welfare and protection of children from many angles. The new Guardianship Act of 1956 is in addition to and not in derogation of the Guardians and Wards Act 1893. The father's pre-eminent position as the patria potestas or head of the family who demanded unquestioned obedience to his commands simply does not obtain today. It is the children's interest which predominates. The legislation, old and new, is characterised by the golden thread which runs through it, which is that the welfare of the child is considered first, last and all the time.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(32) The "welfare principle" is the proper test to be applied in cases of disputes between the parents and is now universally accepted as applicable in all courts dealing with this issue, whether it is matrimonial jurisdiction or guardianship jurisdiction. The welfare of a child is not to be measured by money alone, nor by physical comfort only. It must beread in its largest possible sense, that is to say, as meaning that every circumstance must be taken into consideration, and the court must do what under the circumstances a wise parent acting for the true interest of the child would or ought to do.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(33) The conduct of the parents in relation to the child is obviously relevant in determining what is in his best interest. The parents' conduct towards each other may also be relevant if it reveals personality, or behavior problems which might adversely affect the child. But is matrimonial mis- conduct and responsibility for the breakdown of the parents' marriage "as district from conduct towards the child" to be taken into account in deciding custody issues? There has been a remarkable change of judicial policy on this issue in England. It was for long a settled rule of the divorce court that a mother who had been guilty of adultery should be deprived of care and control. It then came to be recognised that an adulterous mother could nevertheless be a good mother. (Willoughby v. Willoughby 1951 Probate J 84). Singleton L.J. said : "I have yet to learn that the fact that a woman commits adultery prevents her in all circumstances from being a good mother" (p. 192). In some cases even the conduct of the parent was a relevant factor. If one of the spouses was an innocent party it was thought that he was entitled to the custody. But even this is no longer accepted as a universal principle. It all depends on the facts of a particular case. Any attempt to formulate general pronoucements applicable in all cases will be likely to create more difficulties than it solves. What the court has to deal with is the lives of human beings and these cannot be regulated by formulae.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(34) Take the present case. The husband was held to have treated his wife with cruelty. He was the breaker of the home. His cruel conduct sounded the death knell of the marriage. No one can possibly be proud of that.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(35) On the facts of this case it appears to me that the mother is entitled to the custody of the children. The daughter Sophia is a young girl of 14 years. The mother can be relied upon to give that wise counsel and sure guidance that are so necessary to a young girl growing up and maturing through adolescence into a womanhood. As regards the son it will not be in their interest if brother and sister are separated. They have grown up together. The substitute care which the father can provide cannot outweigh the risks of separating these two children from their mother. Their interests will suffer if they are brought up in the home we of the stepmother. On the facts welfare of the children-this girl of 14 and a boy of 11-admits of no other solution.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(36) In practice, as the cases show, the mother now has a built-in-advantage in disputes over the care and control of young children since it will normally be difficult for a father to provide adequate material care for them. In any case the courts have been heavily influenced by the view that a mother's care is necessary for the child's proper psychological development. Hence a mother is likely to be given care and control because she is thought "not as a matter of law, but in the ordinary course of nature the right person to have charge of young children." (Re : K (minors), 1977 I All E, 647, 655 per Sir John Pennycuick ; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob, and Raj</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
Rani v. Subhash Chander, 23 (1983) Delhi Law Times 240 (DB).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(37) Much capital was sought to be made of the observations of Goswami J. in relation to the wife's character and conduct, that is visits of Vashist to the matrimonial home and the husband's protests with regard thereto. It was said that the wife is disqualified from claiming custody of the children on this ground. According to this view if the husband is morally blameless in relation to the breakup of marriage he ought to be given the custody. I do not agree, If the father, however innocent he may be, cannot provide the necessary physical and emotional environment, nothing can derogate from the court's duty to provide the solution which is for the child's welfare. The child's welfare has become the only factor to be taken into account and everything else is subordinate to it. In the end the judge has this single decision to made, namely, what is best for the welfare of the child ?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(38) Applying these principles it appears to me that there is no reason at all why the mother ought not to have the custody, care and control of the children. They are devoted to her and she is attached to them. The husband has remarried. The new partner he has taken will have her own children. The father had one child from the second marriage. But unfortunately he has died. Remarriage is a factor which has to be taken into account. If on that ground the husband is disqualified the natural mother must be given the custody. In many cases this must inevitably happen when a home is broken. To grant custody to the father would only lead to further unhappiness. The guardian judge has failed to give enough weight to the loving relationship between the mother and the children who are now grown up. Nor has he given due weight to the second marriage of the husband. The judge seems to me to have repeated one of the myths that the court has been trying to explode for many years. In the judgment he says:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"The mother has not absolved herself of the charge of adultery against her and rather thought not fit to contest the charge. Such conduct disentitles her from claiming the custody of the children."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
He thought that the observations of Goswami, J. "reflect upon the way of life which the mother is leading at the moment and if the children are allowed to be in her company it may have adverse affect on their moral as well as physical growth." I cannot accept this view. Goswami, J. has not found that the mother is living in adultery. He was concerned only with the question of cruelty. He found that the husband was not cruel when Vashist visited his house and he protested. To say that this is a finding of adultery against the wife will be doing the grossest injustice to her. V/e live in a tolerant society. Adultery has to be put in issue and proved like a quasi-criminal offence. So the basis of the judge's order giving custody to the father was, in my view, unsound. He made a wrong decision. Founding himself on a narrow conception of moral welfare, he gave too little weight to the factors favorable and too much weight to the factors adverse to the mother's claim that she should retain care and control of the children. It is the duty of the appellate court to set aside the decision if it is satisfied that it is wrong. On the view I take the Judge's error was in the balancing exercise. Every case of custody involves a balancing exercise. It involves choices and risks.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(39) The relations between the parties are embittered. They are fighting in court, as I saw each of them, with inflamed passions. They are on the worst of terms. A state of acute hostility prevails between them. This sharpness of conflict between parents has made my task difficult. Even though the divorce proceedings have ended, the bitterness and mutual recrimination continue. There were allegations, counter-allegations, and mutual suspicions. The wife complained that the husband is following her everywhere to see that she is thrown out of employment by the employer and out of the house where she is living by the landlord. She showed me letters which, according to her, he had written under anonymous names to her employers and others describing her as a call girl and a smuggler. The husband denied this. I have not gone into the truth of these allegations, because that was not the scope of the proceedings. But what I have found is that there are unending accusations of one against the other even now that they are divorced,</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(40) I have borne in mind throughout the children's welfare is the first and paramount consideration. I am convinced that it is in the children's interest to stay with their mother. To take them away from her would not only be wrong from their point of view, it would also, in my judgment, be a grave injustice to the mother. As I see, these proceedings are in fact a continuation of divorce proceedings which took place before Goswami J. I have, therefore, to keep in mind the characters and personalities of the claimants, before and after divorce, their rights and wrongs, their conduct and behavior, their quarrels, shoutings and unkindnesses.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(41) Under section 26 the court is enjoined to make a provision for the minor children "consistently with their wishes wherever possible". I have met these two children twice in my chamber and talked to them in private. Although the court cannot allow a young person of 14 to decide entirely for herself, the fact that she did at the moment have a very positive view cannot be ignored as a most important factor in the case. I cannot ignore the close relationship of the mother and the daughter. It appears to me that she is a caring and a loving mother. The children have attained the age of the discretion. One is 14 and the other is 11. They can make an intelligent preference. The girl will soon be on her own.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(42) Custody means physical possession. It means a bundle of rights or to be more exact a bundle of powers which continue until the child attains the age of 18 years. But as Lord Denning has pointed out :</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"custordy is a dwindling right which the courts will hesitate to enforce against the wishes of the child, and the more so the older he is, It starts with a right of control and ends with little more than advice."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
( Hewer v. Bryant, 1970 (1) Q.B. 357, 369).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(43) One other thing remains to be said. The wife is educated. She is a teacher. She was employed in a women's organisation. She produced her salary certificate. She earns from tuitions also. She can look after the education of the children. The husband's case is that the education of the children has suffered. They were removed from their previous schools, it is true. The girl was removed from Lady Irwin School and the boy from Frank Anthony Public School. I was at pains to ascertain whether they are being sent to a good school now. I found that they are reading in a good public school. I saw their progress report and their fee book. The mother has put them in a good school with whatever means she has. But she was not willing to disclose the name of the school in open court because she feared that the husband will remove them from the school. This will add to her difficulties, she said. She has asked me not to disclose the name of the school in my judgment.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(44) The question is whether the court is bound to disclose the name of the school to the father. He is very much insistent. In my opinion, I am not bound to disclose it to him in view of embittered relations between the parties and the vilification campaign which he is carrying on against his previous wife, as was alleged by the appellant. The inherent jurisdiction of the court is derived from the crown's prerogative power as parens patriae. The theory is that court is the guardian of all the infants in the realm. This invests the proceedings with a somewhat unusual character. Inasmuch as there is a justiciable issue between the parties the court is normally exercising a judicial function, but as its first duty is to protect the child irrespective of parents' wishes, its jurisdiction is also administrative. The House of Lords concluded in Official Solicitor v.K ((1965) Appeal Cases 201) that this entitled it to depart from the normal rules of evidence if this is necessary in the child's interest. It has always been accepted that the judge is entitled to see the child and each of the parents in private. In Official Solicitor v. K (supra) it was held that the judge may receive a confidential report from the child's guardian ad litem without disclosing it to the parties if he considers that disclosure would be detrimental to the child.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(45) Where the paramount purpose is the welfare of the minor, the procedure and rules of evidence should serve and certainly not thwart that purpose. The judge can hold proceedings in camera. He can see the children privately in his room when dealing with these cases. He can see each parent separately. This is left co judge's discretion. In the last resort the welfare of the child must dominate. Everything else is subordinate. This is the essence of the matter. (See Scott v. Scott, (1913) Ac 417, 437). No one disputes that this practice is free from objection or that these interviews are confidential. (In re A" at p. 235). As has been said :</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"A principle of judicial enquiry, whether fundamental or not, is only a means to an end. If it can be shown in any particular class of case that the observance of principle of this sort does not serve the ends of justice, it must be dismissed otherwise it would become the master instead of the servant of justice."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(In re K p. 238 per Lord Devlin).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(46) This is an unusual step, no doubt. But this is necessitated by the exceptional circumstances of this case where I have found that the parties even after divorce have taken to the path of unending accusations and recriminations.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(47) PARENTS' pre and post-divorce behavior has induced me to take this unusual step. Apart from this it must be remembered that the wardship jurisdiction of the court is not ousted or abrogated. The wardship litigation is very different from other litigation. It is not an ordinary lis. In the words of Lord Cross :</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
"clearly a wardship case differs altogether from ordinary litigation. In an ordinary action the court has before it two parties, each of whom asserts that he has a legal right to a decision in his favor. The function of the judge is to act as umpire at the fight and to decide which side has won. In a wardship case the court is asked to take the child into its care and to decide how and with whom it is best for the child to be brought up. The role of the parties is to simply put before the judge for his consideration their suggestions with regards to the ward's upbringing."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
( 83 (1967) Lqr p. 200, 207).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(48) It is right at this stage to say that in order to be satisfied myself whether the children were reading in some school I asked the Registrar to verify the fact from the school named by the children in my private interview with them. He has informed me that the children are actually reading in a public school, as deposed by the mother in her affidavit. The daughter is in 8th class and the boy is in 5th class.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(49) To summarise: I rest my judgment on the broad ground that the mother is entitled to the custody of the children ; and there is nothing in her conduct, her character, or her present position to induce any court to take away her children from her. I do not want to take the risk of sending the children back to the father who has remarried. That will produce a rankling sense of injustice and depression in them which will not only hinder their development, but can easily prejudice their whole future. My choice is for the mother.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(50) The welfare test is the ultimate criterion. It is the governing consideration. Between 1890 and 1955 the whole social attitude towards parents and children had changed and the law has continued to develop and will develop by reflecting the changing times, trends and tendencies. Gone are the days of the pater familias. Gone are the days of the absolute right of the father to the custody of his child. The change in the climate of social conditions has taken place gradually and its influence on the courts has been quite perceptible. The tide began to turn against the power and authority of the father. Under the impact of changing social conditions and the weight of opinion the Hindu Marriage Act was passed in 1955. Section 26 is directed to equalise the legal rights or claims of the parents, and seeks to achieve an equality between the sexes in relation to custody of minors. This is a statutory provision which is almost refreshing in its clarity. The section means what it says-no more and no less : if on a consideration of all the circumstances the judge considers that the paramount welfare of the minor demands a particular arrangement as being the proper one he shall make that arrangement. The stepmother has lodged an affidavit that she will act as the mother of the children. I think she cannot take the place of the mother. The mother has layers of love for her children. She can wipe the tear of every eye.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(51) The judge is required to give sympathetic consideration to the wishes of the minor if he is of an age fit enough to express an opinion. The court has the duty to consider the application on its merits before it. It must take into account all the merits and demerits of the alternative proposals as they seem likely to bear upon the child's welfare. In the end it must adopt the course most calculated to promote the welfare of the child. There is nothing permanent about the order relating to custody; it can be varied at any time.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(52) The more modern approach to the question of custody is represented by Gohar Begum's case. The modern feeling in these matters is that ties of affection ought not to be disregarded. Ved v. Ved be Beaumont Cj illustrates it. The equality of parents is much more pronounced in the Hindu Marriage Act. The authorities are not always consistent and the way along which they have moved towards a broader discretion had many twists and turns. No useful purpose will be served by a copious citation of authority. The Hindu Guardianship Act, 1956 has also put the rights of the mother on an equality with those 'of the father in relation to the custody of minors, and the tide has run more strongly against the father as the cases show.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(53) A child's future happiness and sense of security are always important factors. On the whole facts of this easel have come to the conclusion that the children should remain with the mother and the change of custody will prove detrimental to their interests. I am also of opinion that the aspersion cast on the character of the mother is without any substance. She has not forfeited her right to custody in any manner.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24.366666793823242px; text-align: justify;">
(54) For these reasons the order of the Guardian Judge dated 21.7.1983 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The custody of the children will remain with their mother, until further orders. The parties are left to bear their own costs.</div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-19201921245860211152013-01-10T22:39:00.002-08:002013-01-10T22:39:22.064-08:00custody of child under section 26 of Hindu Marriage act,1955.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13pt;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 17px; line-height: 24.33333396911621px;"><b>custody of child under section 26 of Hindu Marriage act,1955.</b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 17px; line-height: 24.33333396911621px;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13pt;">Arun Lata vs Civil Judge And Ors. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Equivalent citations: AIR 1998 All 29, II (1997) DMC 383<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Author: D Seth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Bench: D Seth<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">ORDER<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">D.K.
Seth, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">1. An
application for vacating the stay order was filed on behalf of opposite party
No. 2. The said application was listed for orders on 20th March 1997. Mr.
Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the opposite party, took a preliminary
objection. He contended that under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an
appeal lies against the impugned order before the learned District Judge.
Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. A. Kumar, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, disputed the said contention on various grounds.
Since the hearing could not be completed the matter was adjourned till 9th of
April 1997. On the next date, it was further adjourned till 12th May 1997. On
25th April 1997, both the learned counsel pointed out that the matter was fixed
on 24th April, 1997 but by mistake the date was noted as 12th May, 1997 in the
order dated 9th April, 1997. Accordingly the matter was fixed on 9th May, 1997
instead of 12th May, 1997 by an order dated 25th April, i 997 by the consent of
the parties for the reasons recorded in the order dated 25th April, 1997.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">2. On 9th
May 1997, an application for amendment was tiled in the Court by Mr. A. Kumar,
copy of the said application was served upon Mr. Govind Krishna on 24th April,
1997. Mr. Govind Krishna insisted that by reason of the interim order, the
opposite party No. 2 has been suffering great prejudice. Therefore, the
application for amendment may be taken up for hearing immediately. He submitted
that in view of the statements made in the application for amendment which is a
belated one, he does not propose to file any counter affidavit to the said
application for amendment. However, he would contest the same on merit and the
opposite party No. 2 does not admit any of the statements made in the said
application for amendment. Mr. Govind Krishna also proposed that right from
20th March, 1997, he was insisting upon disposal of the whole matter since the
writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, he is prepared to argue on the
merit of the case along with his contention in opposition to the application
for amendment. Therefore, the whole matter may be heard and the same may be
finally disposed of. Mr. A. Kumar agree to the proposition. By the consent of
the parties, the whole matter is taken up for hearing along with the
application for amendment. Both the learned counsel addressed extensively on
the merits of the case in support of their respective contentions while
supporting and opposing the application for amendment. The question of disposal
of the application for amendment also depended, as argued by both the counsel,
on the merits of the case. The question was so intricate and involved the whole
dispute it was necessary to refer to the merits of the case as well. For the
sake of convenience and proper understanding of the dispute, the Court had
agreed to the proposal suggested by both the learned counsel as above and
treats the matter with the consent of the parties as on day's list for hearing together
with the application for amendment and the application for vacating the interim
order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">3. Since
the facts are a little elaborate and appears to be on the marginal line of
complicated one, reference to the facts would help us in grasping the emerging
situation. The facts are not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties. The admitted facts, as emerges from the record, are as
folllows.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">4. The
opposite party No. 2 Arvind Kumar and the petitioner Arun Lata were married on
4th May, 1980. Arvind Kumar is a lawyer practising at Bulandshahr. He
instituted a suit for divorce being Divorce petition No. 208 of 1981 in the
Court of Civil Judge, Bulandshahr on 23rd July, 1981. A child out of the
wedlock was born on 15th March, 1982. The suit for Divorce was decreed ex parte
on 5th May, 1982 (Annexure '1'). In the said suit, no interim order was passed
with regard to the custody or maintenance of the child. Neither any provision
with regard thereto was incorporated in the decree. On 23rd May, 1994, Arvind
Kumar filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of
the child. The same was registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 1984. Arvind Kumar
had also filed Case No. 440 of 1984 for certain other reliefs against Prakash Rani
and others including Arun Lata before the Special Judicial Magistrate,
Bulandshahr. At this stage, Arun Lata sought for transfer of respective cases
from Bulandshahr to Delhi, on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
issue notice on Arvind by an order dated 11th July, 1984 (Annexure '2'). By an
order dated 20th February, 1985 (Annexure '3'), the Transfer Petition was
disposed of. In the said order, it was recorded that both the parties had
agreed that all the cases filed by them against each other would forthwith be
withdrawn and that Arvind Kumar will pay Rs. 200/- per month regularly for
maintenance of their only son with effect from March 1, 1985. Accordingly the
parties had undertaken to withdraw all the cases. In terms of the said order
dated 20th February 1985 both case No. 440 of 1984 and Misc. No. 22 of 1984
were withdrawn by Arvind Kumar.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">5.
Subsequently on 30th September, .1991, Arvind Kumar filed Case No. 200 of 1991
under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Arun Lata for the custody of
the said child. And 20th October, 1991 was the date fixed in the said Case No.
200 of 1991. She sent a telegram on 21st October 1991 (Annexures '4'
and''5')intimating the Court that she had fallen ill and, therefore, the case
may be adjourned. The said Case No. 200 of 1991 was ultimately allowed ex parte
by an order dated 26th October, 1991 (Annexure '6'). Arun Lata filed Misc. Case
No. 239 of 1991 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 26th October, 1991.
On account of non-appearance of her counsel, Misc. Case No. 239 of 1991 was
dismissed by an order dated 20th, November, 1992 (Annexure '7'). Arun Lata
filed Misc. Case No. 134 of 1992 for restoration of Misc. Case No. 239 of 1991.
By an order dated 14th May, 1993, on account of non-appearance of Arun Lata's
counsel. Misc. Case No. 134 of 1992 was dismissed for default. Arvind Kumar
thereupon filed an application under Section 28-A for execution of the ex parte
order dated 26th October, 1991. The same was registered as Execution Case No.
34 of 1993 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr. The said execution was
allowed by an order dated 31st May, 1993 passed ex parte (Annexure '12'). In
the said order, a direction was given to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bulandshahr to provide police assistance for bringing the child and produce him
in the Court on 5th July, 1993 for delivery of custody to Arvind Kumar. For
compliance of the said order, 13th August, 1993 was fixed. Arun Lata has now
filed this writ petition seeking to quash the orders dated 31st May 1993 and
26th October, 1991.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">6. By an
order dated 12th August, 1993 passed in the present writ petition, the
operation of the order dated 31st May, 1993 was stayed till further orders. It
is this order which has been sought to be vacated by means of the application
for vacating the interim order by Mr. Govind Krishna appearing on behalf of
Arvind Kumar.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">7. By an
application for amendment, the following amendment has been sought to be
incorporated :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"1.
That in the title of the petition, wherein it has been stated that writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be added as
"under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India" be added;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">2. That
in the grounds after ground No. G the following ground be added :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"H.
Because in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20-2-1985, it
was not open to the respondent to file a petition for the custody of. Master
Nipun'.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">3. That
in the prayer clause after prayer No. V the following prayer may be permitted
to be added :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">VI. To
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the
records of the case and to quash the order dated 20-6-1992 passed in Misc. Case
No. 239 of 1991 and the orders dated 13-4-1992 and 14-5-1993;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">VII. To
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the
records of the case and to quash the ex parte decree passed in Matrimonial
Petition No. 208 of 1991;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">VIII. To
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to give effects the orders dated 20-5-1992, 13-4-1992 and
14-5-1993."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">8. Mr.
Govind Krishna opposed the said amendment on the ground that the same having
been made at such a belated stage, the amendment should not be allowed. He also
contended that the amendment, if allowed, would not only change the complexion
of the case made out by the petitioner, it would also change the whole nature
and character of the proceedings. Mr. Kumar on the other hand, contended that amendment
would neither change the complexion of the case nor would have the effect of
changing the nature and character of the case. The situation is as such that
the delay cannot stand in the way of allowing the amendment in the special
facts and circumstances of the present case. Inasmuch as it is only another
point of view on which the orders impugned could be assailed has been sought to
be incorporated as ground. It is only in effect supplemental and are
elaboration of the grounds already taken. The objection taken is technical
since the order dated 26th October, 1991 has already been challenged. The other
three orders dated 13th April, 1992, 20th may 1992 and 14th May, 1993 have been
sought to be included by way of mere formalities. Therefore, the amendment
should be allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">9. I have
heard both the counsel on the question of amendment. The fact remains that it
was the order dated 29th October, 1991 in execution whereof the order dated
31st May, 1993 was passed and these are the two principal orders on which the
rights of the parties survive in favour of or against the one or the other. The
other two orders dated 13th April, 1992 and 20th May, 1992 are the orders by
which the applications for recalling the order dated 26th October, 1991 were
dismissed for default. Therefore, those are only ancillary orders. In case the
order dated 26th October, 1991 is set aside, then the said orders dated 13th
April, 1992 and 20th May, 1992 would become redundant and/or non-est. Similarly
if the order dated 26th October, 1991 is set aside, then again the ex-parte
order and the execution thereof passed on 14th may, 1993 would similarly become
redundant and non-est. These are pure technicalties. When the two principal
orders have been challenged, simply because of a technical flaw in not
challenging the said three orders, the writ petition cannot be thrown away and
would very well be maintainable even without the same if on merit or otherwise
the order dated 26th October, 1991 could be or is interfered with in exercise
of the discretionary power under Article 226. The amendment seeks to
incorporate a ground and three prayers which does not in any way change the
nature and character of the proceedings. Neither it has any effect on the
complexion of the case made out. Therefore, the amendment sought to be
incorporated, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be inconsistent
with the pleadings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">10. The
application has been originally inscribed as one under Article<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">226. By
amendment it was also sought to be inscribed alternatively as one under Article
227. Whether the application is maintainable under Article 226 or 227 would be
dealt with later on. Whether this Court will exercise its discretion either
under Article 226 or 227 would also be gone into subsequently. For the purpose
of allowing the amendment, it is not required to go into those questions, it is
the jurisdiction which is being sought to be invoked. In case a particular kind
of proceedings is not maintainable and a different kind of proceeding lies in
respect thereof, the Court has jurisdiction to convert the one into the other
subject to limitation and Court-fee, as the case may be. This question will
also be gone into later on when the question of maintainability as has been
raised by Mr. Govind Krishna will be dealt with. At this stage, in view of the
legal propostion that this Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases to
convert a proceeding from one into the other, for the sake of deciding the
question of amendment, it is not required to be gone into the said question.
Subject to the objection taken on the question of maintainability of the writ
petition and its conversion into one under Article 227, the amendment as a
whole is hereby allowed and shall be deemed to be incorporated in the writ
petition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">11. Mr.
Govind Krishna contends that the jurisdiction under Article 220 and Article 227
are altogether different. The petitioner has to make a choice which
jurisdiction he seeks to invoke. It is an option exercised by the petitioner.
If opted for one, the other shall be deemed to have been waived by the
petitioner. By way of amendment, he cannot opt for the other since been waived.
The petitioner cannot opt for both on being indecisive. In such cases, he
contends that though the Court has jurisdiction to convert the one into the
other, the Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner
which he had deliberately given up earlier. Secondly he contends that the scope
of Article 226 and 227 cannot go together and, therefore, an application cannot
be treated to be an application under either one or the other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">12. Under
Article 220, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction conferred on it by the
Constitution to issue writs against any person. The exercise of writs are
restricted by the restraint exercised by the Court upon itself. Writ as it
originally conceived was available against the State and the authority within
the meaning of Article 12. The concept of authority under Article 12 has been
widely expanded by various judicial pronouncements and has developed to an
extent as it stands today. By reason of development in law, the horizon of
Article 12, has been extended not only to include the State and the other
authorities but also the agencies and instrumentalities of the <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1281050/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">State
(See Ramanna Daya Ram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR</span></a> 1979
SC 1628, Ajay Hasis v. Khalid, AIR 1981 SC 487 and <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/477313/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Central
Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguli, AIR</span></a> 1986
SC 1571).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">13. The
organs of the sovereign has been divided into three-legislature, executive and
the jurisdicary. Article 12 while defining "the State" included the
Government and parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and local and other authorities within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India. This definition has been
included in Part III in relation to Fundamental Rights. Whereas in Part V
dealing with the Union in Chapter I, it mentions Executive and in Chapter II it
mentions Parliament. While Judiciary has been dealt with in Chapter IV.
Similarly in Part VI dealing with the States, Chapter II deals with the
Executive while Chapter III relates to the State Legislature and Chapter V
deals with the High Courts in the States. Fundamental rights are available
against the State. These fundamental rights are enforced under Article 226
through High Courts. The Courts while discharging judicial functions is not a
State and no fundamental right is available against the judiciary when it
discharges judicial functions. The Judiciary may be State in relation to a
certain class of people when it exercises administrative functions over them.
Judiciary cannot be State for enforcement of fundamental rights in its relation
with the litigants who come for enforcement of their rights through judiciary.
That was the reason, despite existence of Article 226, immediately thereafter
Article 227 has been engrafted conferring overall superintending power on the
High Court over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction. Similarly Article 32 has been engrafted in
relation to the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the opposite party contends
that since the order impugned is an order passed by a Civil Court, it is not
amenable to writ jurisdiction particularly when the dispute is a dispute
between two private persons, as has been held in the case of Matthan Singh v.
II Additional District Judge, Meerut, (1996)1 All Rent Cas 117.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">14. The
question was considered in the case of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/168379/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Ganga
Saran v. Civil Judge Hapur, AIR</span></a> 1991 All 114 by a Full Bench of
this very Court in which the principle was laid down to the extent that writ
will lie against an order passed by the Civil Court where "either appeal
or revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is available to the High Court because of
the amendment of Section 115, C.P.C. at Allahabad on the same principle on
which the jurisdiction under Article 226 is exercised provided that there has
been violation of fundamental principles law and the relief sought for is not a
relief which the other side is not obliged to perform in discharge of his
public duty. The decision in the case of Matthan Singh (supra) is not an
independent decision but is an understanding on the reading of the ratio
decided by the Full Bench in the case of Ganga Saran (AIR 1991 All 114)
(supra).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">15. In
the present case, the relief sought against the order does not emanate from any
obligation to perform anything in discharge of public duty by either of the
parties. The lis is between two private persons, none of whom is obliged to
discharge any public duty in relation to the dispute concerned. There is no lis
against the Judge or the Judiciary, while discharging judicial function, the
Courts decide dispute between the parties. It never becomes a party to the lis
and there being provisions for appeal and revision either under Section 115,
C.P.C. or under Article 227, as the case may be, the jurisdiction under Article
226 can not be invoked, even though the test of violation of fundamental
principles of law is satisfied. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, of the
case, the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable against the orders impugned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">16. The
learned counsel for the opposite party contends that if the application itself
is not maintainable, there cannot be any scope of allowing an amendment in a
non-maintainable proceeding. If the Court does not have the jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition, in that event, it cannot assume jurisdiction to
amend the said writ petition in respect of which the Court cannot exercise
jurisdiction. The scope of the two Articles being altogether different, the
amendment if allowed altogether changes the nature and character of the
proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">17. The
second contention of the counsel for the opposite party, as above does not
stand to reason because of the fact that the nature of the proceeding is in
substance a revision. While exercising writ jurisdiction, the High Court
exercises its power of revision. It does not sit on appeal but a review of the
manner in which the decision was made. The jurisdiction exercised under Article
227 is also a revisional jurisdiction. In exercise of Article 227, the High
Court does not sit on appeal but revises or reviews the process making the
decision or the jurisdiction or otherwise. Therefore, in substance the
jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 and under Article 227 are
substantially a revisional jurisdiction. The only difference is that the
revision under Article 226 is exercised against the State or other authorities
falling within the ambit of Article 12 while jurisdiction under Article 227 is
that of superintendence over the Courts and Tribunals within the territory over
which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction. It is only the authority whose
order is being revised makes the distinction or difference as to which
revisional power would be exercised by the High Court (226 or 227). Therefore,
by reason of conversion of application from one under Article 226 to one under
Article 227 does not change the nature and character of the proceeding. It
remains are visional proceeding in either of the two cases. So far as the first
part of the above contention of the opposite party is concerned, the same cuts
at the root of the jurisdiction of the High Court to convert one into other. By
now it has been a settled principle of law that the High Court has power to
convert an appeal into a revision or a revision into an appeal subject to
limitation and Court-fees, as the case may be. In the present case, neither
under Article 226 or under Article 227, there is any provision provided for
limitation. Though, however, delay in invoking the jurisdiction is a factor to
be taken into consideration, similarly the question of Court-fee also docs not
pose any hindrance in the present case inasmuch as the Court-fees in respect of
an application under Articles 226 and 227 are one and the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">18. The
contention of the counsel for the petitioner that by reason of such amendment,
the Court is creating jurisdiction in itself which it did not possess when the
application was originally made. The Court cannot create jurisdiction through
amendment in an application which was not maintainable as it stood when the
amendment is being made.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">19. The
above contention is not acceptable because of the reason that the Court cannot
create jurisdiction if it does not possess the same. Here by reason of
amendment, no jurisdiction is created. The High Court is in possession of
different jurisdictions under Article 226 and under Article 227. It is
exercising in its discretion as to which jurisdiction it would exercise. The
power of superintendence as conferred by Article 227 is ingrained in the High
Court. This power of superintendence includes power of judicial revision to get
the inferior Courts and Tribunal within the bound of their authority to see
that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner
(See D.N. Banerjee v. R.K. Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302 : (AIR 1953 SC 58). The
power of judicial superintendence conferred by Article 227 is not limited by
technical rules which govern the exercise of the power to issue writ to
certiorari under Article 226. The power under Article 226 can be exercised only
on an application of a party. But the power under Article 227 may be exercised
by the Court also suo motu <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1450722/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">(See
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque,</span></a> (1995) 1 SCR 1104 :
(AIR 1955 SC 233). The power under Article 227 is exercised by the Court in its
discretion and cannot be claimed as of right by any party. Though there is no
period of limitation prescribed for such application which may be refused inter
alia on the ground of unreasonable delay which is not explained by special
circumstances and particularly were by reason of delay the position of the
opposite party has changed. Therefore, even if the High Court in its discretion
thinks it can interfere with the matter is exercise of its power of
superintendence, there the conversion would not affect materially the
jurisdiction conferred on the High Court itself which is already in existence.
That apart in the case of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/482912/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">The Reliable Water Supply Service of India (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India, AIR</span></a> 1871 SC 2083 the High Court's power to
convert one into other has been recognised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">20. In
the present case two orders have been challenged one dated 31st May, 1993 and
the other 26th October, 1991. The writ petition was moved on 12th August, 1993
having been affirmed on 16th July, 1993. Therefore, so far as the order dated
31st May, 1993 is concerned, there was no question of delay. But so for as the
order dated 26th October, 1991 is concerned, the same stands explained by
reason of the statements made in the petition itself that two attempts to set
aside order had failed and that in what circumstances the order dated 31st May,
1993 was passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the delay remains
unexplained particularly when from one order impugned in the petition, there is
no delay at all. Therefore, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree
with the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party in this
regard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">21. Now
on the question of merit, the counsel for the opposite party contends that
since both the orders impugned are orders either passed under Section 26 or
flows from it, an appeal lies under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the
learned District Judge because of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
Therefore, even if the High Court has power of superintendence under Article
227, even then it cannot convert the application under Article 227 into one
under appeal since the appeal lay before the learned District Judge and not
before the High Court. Alternatively he argues that even if the application
under Article 226 is converted into under Article 227, the same cannot be
exercised when there is an alternative forum by means of an appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">22.
Admittedly if an adequate alternative remedy lay and if the same has not been
availed of, the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked as has been
held in the case of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1809563/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Maneck Custodji Surjarji v. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza,
AIR</span></a> 1976 SC 2446 (Para 6), wherein it is further observed :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"It
is true that this principle is not rigid and inflexible and there can be
extraordinary circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal
remedy, the High Court may interfere in favour of the applicant."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">23. In
the case of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/836690/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Shanker Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya
Bapat, AIR</span></a> 1970 SC 1 : 1969 (2) SCC 74 (78) it was held that if
two remedies were open and the party had exhausted one it would not be sound
exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set of proceedings in
respect of the same order of the subordinate Court. But in the present case,
the other mode of relief has not been invoked or exhausted. Hence it is a case
where the Court has to exercise one or the other of the modes if one does not
apply and the other does. Therefore, it has to be looked into as to how far the
contention of the counsel for the opposite-party works in favour of his
contention or against that of the counsel for the petitioner.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">24. The
counsel for the opposite party contends that an appeal lies under Section 28 of
the Hindu Marriage Act from an order passed under Section 26 of the said Act
before the Court such appeal lay from an order passed by the Court. According
to him, by reason of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the order has been
passed by the learned Civil Judge who is conferred with the jurisdiction under
the Family Courts Act. Ordinarily an appeal lies to the District Judge from an
order passed by the Civil Judge. Therefore, in terms of Section 28, the appeal
lies to the District Judge and not to the High Court. Therefore, there is no
scope for conversion of the proceedings into one under appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">25. The
above proposition does not appeal to me for the simple reason that under
Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, every petition under the said Act is to
be presented before the District Court as defined in Section 3(b) thereof being
the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or any other Civil Court
notified by the State Government. An appeal from the principal Civil Court of
original jurisdiction lies to the High Court as is understood from the scheme
as expressed in Section 28 of the said Act. The issue is further clarified in a
clear and unambiguous expression used in Section 19 of the Family Courts Act
providing therein that an appeal shall lie from every judgment and order of a
Family Court to the High Court notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Civil Procedure or in any other law. The jurisdiction exercised by the Civil
Judge is conferred by reason of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act as
established under Section 3 of the said Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the High Court cannot invoke its power to convert a revision into a memo of
appeal or vice versa as sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the
opposite party.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">26.
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides as follows :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"26.
Custody of children. -- In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may, from
time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree
as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and
education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible,
and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose; make
from time to lime, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody,
maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such
decree or interim orders in case the proceedings for obtaining such decree were
still pending, and the Court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary
any such orders and provisions previously made".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">27. The
said Section postulate that the Court may pass interim orders or may make
provision in the decree with regard to the custody, maintenance and education
of the minor children consistently with their wishes, wherever possible. Where
such provision is made either by way of an interim order or in the decree, in
such cases, after the decree, further applications can be made in respect of
the custody, maintenance and education. By such decree or interim order and for
such purpose, the proceeding for obtaining such decree shall be deemed to be
pending. The Court may also revoke, suspend or vary such orders and provisions
previously made. The scheme of the Section clearly indicates that the power
under Section 26 can be exercised by way of interim order in the pending
proceeding or while disposing of any such application made therein before the
decree is passed or at the time of passing the decree by incorporating such
provision in the decree itself, such provision can also be made. The power
under Section 26 can also be exercised after the decree is passed only if such
orders were passed previous to the decree either by way of interim order or in
the decree itself, it is clear from the expressions used that only on these
conditions as referred to above, the Court can exercise jurisdiction under
Section 26. In view of the clear and unambiguous expression used, it does not
postulate any other contingency. Inasmuch as if no order towards that end is
made either by way of interim order or otherwise in the pending proceeding or
it is not incorporated in the decree itself, in that event, the Court cannot
assume jurisdiction to decide an application under Section 26 of the Act after
the decree is passed, namely, whereafter the proceeding terminates and does not
remain pending, the deeming clause postulates deemed pendency only in cases
where provisions were made either by interim order or otherwise during the
pendency of the proceeding or in the decree itself and not otherwise. My above
view finds support from the clear and unambigous expression used in the Section
itself. The expression "previously made" read with the expression
"such provisions ............... as might have been made by such decree or
interim orders', there is no scope for any ambiguity i n the scheme itself. The
language is very clear and simple There cannot be any other meaning because of
the expression used in the said Section. When the meaning of a statute is
available on a true construction by the plain meaning, the Court cannot add or
substract anything therefrom. The principle of interpretation does not permit
the Court to find out any other meaning when the language is clear, unambigous,
sure and simple. In the present case, the language and expression used in
Section 26 is clear, simple, unambigusous, sure and certain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">28.
Section 26 does not confer an independent right to any person. It is a right
conferred on the parties to a litigation litigating under the Hindu Marriage
Act only in a pending proceeding and the proceeding deems to be pending as
mentioned above. If no proceeding is pending, Section 26 does not create any
right for initiation of a proceeding independent of a proceeding under the said
Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">29. It is
also not contended by the counsel for the opposite party that the said
proceeding is a suit or proceeding in relation to the Guardians and Wards Act
and independent of the earlier proceedings for divorce. But, however, in the
order dated 26th October, 1991, it is recorded that the opposite party was she
guardian of the child according to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and,
therefore, he is entitled to the guardianship and custody of the child. The
learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the earlier application
for the custody of the child was under the Guardian and Wards Act or under the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The order dated 20th February, 1985
records that the cases filed by each of them against the other will forthwith
be withdrawn. The parties had undertaken to withdraw all the cases. Accordingly
Arvind Kumar had withdrawn the cases. After having withdrawn, he is precluded
from making any further application. The order, however, refers to an order
dated 5th September, 1991, wrongly printed as 5th September, 1993, passed by
the Apex Court but no such order is being produced before this Court. Even in
the written statement filed by the counsel for the opposite party, no reference
has been made to the order dated 5th September, 1991 except that the opposite
party had filed Case No. 200 of 1991 under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act
in connection with Matrimonial Case No. 208 of 1991. Therefore, it is not a
proceeding within the meaning of Section 7(1), Explanation (g) of the Family
Courts Act. On the other hand, it was clearly a miscellaneous proceeding as asserted
by the counsel for the opposite party under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage
Act filed in connection with the said Original Matrimonial Case No. 208 of
1991. The jurisdiction of the Family Court is confined in respect of the suits
in proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation to Sub-section (1)
of Section 7 and not otherwise, Clause (g) of the Explanation to Sub-section
(1) of Section 7 refers to "a suit or proceeding in relation to the
guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, a minor." The
jurisdiction of the Family Court having been specifically provided, it can
assume jurisdiction in respect of suits or proceedings, the nature whereof does
not fall within one or other of the Clauses (a) to (g) of the said explanation.
The Family Court cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of any other proceeding.
Though the Family Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 26 in a
proceeding of the nature contemplated in Clause (a), hut because of Section 26
of the Hindu Marriage Act, no application under Section 26 could be made before
the Family Court in connection with the proceeding of the nature contemplated
in Clause (a) since no such proceeding is pending before the said Court which
had already stood terminated by the passing of the decree. An application under
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not fall within the category provided
in Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">30.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court could
not have assumed jurisdiction to decide the said application under Section 26
of the Hindu Marriage Act and try Matrimonial Suit No. 208 of 1991 which was
not pending in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such the order
passed is wholly without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is amenable to the
jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">31. Now
on the facts it is alleged by the petitioner that she was not being represented
by the counsel engaged by her on the date when her applications were dismissed.
She alleges that such a situation was brought in by reason of the influence
exercised by the husband who happened to be a practising lawyer in the said
Court. The husband had initiated the proceeding for divorce even without
waiting for the birth of the child. The child was born only in March, 1982
whereas the ex parte decree was obtained on 5th May, 1982. The husband has
alleged that he was not aware of the birth of the child till 1991. The husband
never cared either for the wife or for the child and filed the suit for divorce
in July 1981 and sought for guardianship and custody of the child after long 9
years when he had withdrawn his earlier petition in 1985. That he was not aware
of the birth of the child is a misstatement on the face of the record that he
had made an application for the custody of the child under the Guardians and
Wards Act in May, 1984 which he had ultimately withdrawn.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">32. That
apart the impugned order dated 26th October, 1991 does not show that the wishes
of the child was ever attempted to be taken into consideration. While deciding
the case, the Courts had been exercising the jurisdiction of the Family Court
which has been established with the object at bringing in a conciliation in the
relation of the families as provided in Section 9 of the said Act which
requires the Court to endeavour for settlement of the dispute. The word
'endeavour' occurred in Section 9(1) being preceded by the word 'every'
signifies great importance in respect of the duty cast on the Court to bring
about reconciliation. My attention has not been drawn to any such attempt to
have been made towards reconciliation or any attempt to settle the dispute. The
order impugned or any other order does not show that the wishes of the child was
taken into account.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">33. It is
a settled principle of law that the paramount consideration for the custody of
a minor child is the welfare and well being of the child and other
considerations are subordinate. There is no rule of law that rights and wishes
of parents should prevail over other considerations'. Such rights and wishes
are recognised by nature and the society. But such rights are capable for
administering to the welfare of the child. The parental rights remain qualified
and not absolute for the purpose of investigation. Concern has been expressed
by the Courts out of growing experience that serious harm may be caused even to
any children by change in the custody, a difficulty which cannot be resolved by
purely theoretical considerations. The mere desire of a parent should be
subordinate to the consideration of the welfare of the child. <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/270778/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">In
Rosy Jacob v. Jacob, AIR</span></a> 1973 SC 2090, it was held :--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"The
Court will generally refuse to give the custody of minor children to the guilty
party, whether husband or wife. The section gives a wide discretion to the
Court to make such orders as it may deem just and proper and whenever a
marriage is dissolved or an order for judicial separation is made, it becomes
the duty of the Court to take into consideration the welfare of the children
which is of the paramount importance. The wishes of the mother or the father to
have the custody of the child, cannot override the consideration of the welfare
of the child."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">34. In
Hari Chand Rattan Chand v. Virabala, (1974) 15 Guj LR 499: (AIR 1975 Guj 150),
it has been held :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"Where
the minor has a settled home the Court is not to pass a mechanical order
removing the child to another home without consulting the parents and
ascertaining the wishes of the minor. The Court has also to see that happiness
of a child is linked with his associates, his work, his school and finally on
his home, where he gets all the love and affection needed for his proper
growth."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">35. Where
the application for custody of her minor male child below the age of five years
has been made by the wife in the course of proceeding for judicial separation
instituted by her, the custody should be entrusted to her unless there are
special circumstances suggesting that the welfare of the minor demanded
otherwise. In a case before <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/86628/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Delhi
High Court, Suraj Prakash v. Santosh,</span></a> 1979 Mad LR 161, it was
held, "the rule of law of five years is a guiding factor but the pivotal
factor is the benefit and well being of the minor. It is in the interest of the
minors that they are allowed to remain in the custody of the mother till there
is change in circumstances." Though the section requires that wherever
possible the wishes of the minor children should be consulted by the Court
before passing any order under the section, particularly in the matter of their
custody but I.D. Dua, J. who delivered the judgment in Chander Prabha v. Prem
Nath, AIR 1969 Delhi 283 held that in a case of conflict between father and
mother when the child is below five years of age, the mother has been rightly
endowed with a preferential claim in regard to the child's custody as in such
cases the child is not capable of forming any intelligent preference and
expressing it. In case of a child of tender age, care of the child will be
taken much better if he is kept with his mother. <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1576164/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">In
Mohini v. Virender,</span></a> 1976 HLR 305 (sic), the Supreme Court held
:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"The
modern trend seems to be that in case of conflict between the mother and father
regarding the custody of a child of tender age, preference should be given to
the mother in the interest and welfare of the child. Age of the child cannot be
held to be the Sole deciding factor regarding his custody and in a case where
the age of the boy was eleven years, custody of the child was given to the
mother as the welfare of the child warranted it so."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">36. The
Society is in evolution and has been changing. Old concepts and thoughts are
being replaced by new concepts and thoughts. The concept of penance and penance
only by the Weaker section of the society viz. the women folk has undergone a
change. If the men folk could remarry and the children could carry on with the
father then how it would be conceived to be a taboo if the wife remarries and
the child or children carries with her. The attitude and outlook of a fast
changing developing society has to keep abreast the developed situation if it
is good for the reorganised family. Law is for the society. Society is not for
law. Therefore, the law has to keep itself abreast with the changes through
evolutions and be alive to suit the needs to maintain a healthy and peaceful
society vis-a-vis the family. Therefore, orders in this respect are to be
passed with due, care and caution having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">37. The
fact remains that the decree was passed ex parte on 5th May, 1982 on the Divorce
petition filed on 23rd June, 1981 while the child was born some time in March,
1982. Therefore, there was no scope for anything to be provided either by way
of interim order or any decree with regard to the custody, maintenance and
education of the child. The learned counsel for the opposite party has not been
able to show anything that the decree contained any provision with regard to
the custody, maintenance or education of the child nor he has shown anything
that there was any interim order in respect thereof. The application under
Section 26 being Case No. 208 of 1991 was filed some times in 1991 long after
the decree. By reason of such application, the Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the same since the proceedings for obtaining the decree could deem to
be pending only when such orders are provided either in the interim order or in
the decree. If no provision in respect of custody etc. is made either in the
interim order or in the decree for the purpose of Section 26, the proceeding
terminates with the passing of the decree. By no stretch of imagination, it can
be deemed to be pending under Section 26 in view of the specific expression
used, as indicated above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">38. If
the Court does not have jurisdiction and the application is entertained by misconceived
notion and the jurisdiction is exercised though it had none, the order is a
nullity. In absence of any jurisdiction, the order can, in no way, be treated
to be an order in exercise of such jurisdiction. Therefore, the order in the
present case, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be an order passed
under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, no appeal can lie
against such order under Section 28(2). The order under Section 26 as has been
made appealable under Sub-section (2) passed in proceeding under the Hindu
Marriage Act indicates by reason of expression used in the said Sub-section (2)
that the said order is to be passed as contemplated within the meaning of
Section 26 only when the same is an interim order. Such orders can be
appealable even if passed after the decree provided the proceeding is deemed to
be pending on satisfaction of the conditions as mentioned in Section 26. Once
the decree is passed without any provision either by way of order passed on
interlocutory application or in the decree itself, in that event, the decree
becomes final and it cannot be revived for the purpose of being deemed to be
pending by filing of any application subsequent to the decree. Section 26 is
provided for passing order of custody by way of interlocutory measure in a
matrimonial proceeding. The relief with regard to the custody and maintenance
of a child is provided in the Guardianships and Wards Act and in the Hindu
Minority Guardianship Act, 1956. Such relief can be had independently, even
without a matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other
Marriage Act, under the provision either under the Guardians and Wards Act or
under the provision of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, as the case may
be. Only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Section 26 has been engrafted
for the intention of granting relief with regard thereto if a proceeding is
pending. But as soon the proceeding terminations, Section 26 cannot be
available. If such an interpretation is given, in that event, it will be a
parallel statute with those of the Guardianship and Wards Act and the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act. Such an interpretation would be preposterous.
The phrase "orders made by the Court in any proceedings under this Act under
Section 25 or Section 26 clearly indicates that such appeal lies against the
order passed under Section 26 in a pending proceeding and not otherwise.
Therefore, in the present case, the impugned order, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, not being an order under Section 26 passed in a
proceeding under the said Act, since none were pending, is not appealable under
Sub-section (2). The proceedings, not being one under Section 7(1)(g) of the
Family Courts Act or a proceeding arising out of one under Section 7(1)(a), the
order impugned is also not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">39. The
fact as disclosed above is s o aggrevating, it is the duty of the Court to
activate itself to put the things straight when the process are patently
staring on the face of it as an abuse of it. It is the duty of the High Court
to keep the subordinate Court within the limit of its jurisdiction even suo
motu when such matters arc brought to its notice. Both Article 227 of the
Constitution and Section 115 may be exercised without any application. Such
observations is supported by the view expressed in the case of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1281857/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Jatindra
Mohan Nandy v. Krishnadas Nandy,</span></a> 56 Cal WN 858 : AIR 1953 Cal
34 (Para 6 of AIR) wherein it was held :--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"In
any event this Court is perfectly competent to see that proper orders are made
when the matter comes up in revision before this Court. The mere fact that the
plaintiffs did not move should not stand in the way of this Court making an
order in accordance with law, as all the necessary parties are represented
before us."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">40. Mr.
Justice P.N. Mookherji, in the case of Mahendra Dutta and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Uma
Charan Lal, (1964) 68 Cal WN 179 (DB), presiding over the Division Bench had
laid down :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"It
is hardly arguable that a point, which goes to the root of the Court's
jurisdiction cannot be taken in a revision application if the said point has
not been urged before the trial Court. That will practically nullify the
revisional powers of this Court in very appropriate cases in many instances. If
the trial Court has passed an order, which it had no jurisdiction to make, or
which was made in the irregular or illegal exercise of its jurisdiction. This
Court will be failing in its duty if it does not revise the same simply because
the point of jurisdiction was not taken in the trial Court. It is of course
true the exercise of the revisional power of this Court is a matter of
discretion and this discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioner
only in appropriate cases. But it will be wholly inequitable and wholly against
established principle, if the exercise of this discretion is to be refused
merely on the ground that a point of jurisdiction, going to the root of the
matter, cannot be entertained or allowed by this Court, simply because it was
not taken in the trial Court."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"......It
seems to us that when the Rule comes up for final hearing before this Court, it
is open to this Court, if it finds that the Rule should succeed on some ground,
not initially taken, or on a ground, which it was not issued that is, on a
ground other taken the one, on which it was issued to consider the same and
allow the application after of course, giving other party proper opportunities
to meet the said objection. The Court, it seems to us, is not so powerless and
its powers are not so limited as to preclude it from doing justice between the
parties in the exercise of its revisional powers, merely because the Rule was
not issued at the initial stage on the particular ground or grounds concerned.
Indeed, in every rule issued by this Court, we have the residuary clause,
"such other or, further order as to this Court may deem fit and
proper." In our view, those words are comprehensive and wide enough to
include all appropriate revisional grounds and to allow this Court to interfere
in a proper case even on a ground which was not taken at the time the rule was
issued, or upon which the Rule was not initially issued. In the other words,
such interference may well be made even on a ground other than the one on which
the Rule was issued.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">In short,
in a matter of this kind, where a question of jurisdiction is involved, to
deprive a party of suitable relief under the revisional powers of this Court on
the ground that the particular objection was not taken in the trial Court, or
that even if it was taken in the trial Court, as Rule was issued on that
ground, would be to de feat the ends of justice and, in any view, such a
restricted interpretation of the scope of the revisional powers of this Court
would not be consistent either with law or with the principles of justice, or
with precedents or authority."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">41.
Following the said two decisions the Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mitra in the case
of M/s. Dwarika Das Raghubir Prasad Chaudhary, (1987) 1 Cal LJ 479.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"The
High Court is not so powerless and its powers are not so limited to preclude it
from doing justice between the parties in the exercise of revisional powers,
merely because Rule was not issued at the initial stage on the particular
ground or grounds concerned."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">42.
Similar view was taken following the above decisions in the case of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/885929/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Ratan
Muni Jain Intermediate College, Agra v. Director of Education (Secondary),
Allahabad, AIR</span></a> 1997 All 163.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">43. The
facts of the present case, as disclosed above, are such as this Court is
required to intervene because of the reason that proceedings in which the
impugned orders were passed were wholly outside the scope and jurisdiction of
the learned single Judge, as has been observed earlier. Therefore, the impugned
orders dated 26th October, 1991 and 31st May, 1993 (Annexures '6' and '12') are
hereby set aside.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">44. In
the result, this revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution is
allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">There
will, however, be no order as to costs<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-37616175136623629912013-01-10T22:34:00.001-08:002013-01-10T22:34:34.421-08:00custody of foreign national child order in India<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CRIMINAL
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">WRIT
PETITION (CRL.) NO.112/2007<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Dr.
V. Ravi Chandran ..Petitioner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Versus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Union
of India &amp; Ors. ..Respondents<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">R.M.
LODHA, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
is a boy of seven, born on July 1, 2002, in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America. He is a foreign national. The petition before<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">us is
by the father - Dr. V . Ravi Chandran--praying for a writ of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">habeas
corpus for the production of his minor son Adithya and for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">handing
over the custody and his passport to him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2. On
August 28, 2009, this Court passed an order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">requesting
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to trace<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
Adithya and produce him before this Court. The necessity of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">such
order arose as despite efforts made by the police officers and <br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
officials of different states, Adithya and his mother - respondent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">no.
6--Vijayasree Voora--could not be traced and their whereabouts<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">could
not be found for more than two years since the notice was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">issued
by this Court. In pursuance of the order dated August 28,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2009,
CBI issued look out notices on all India basis through heads of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">police
of States, Union Territories and Metropolitan Cities and also<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">alert
notices through Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Immigration),
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and flashed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">photographs
of the child Adithya and his mother Vijayasree Voora.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Ultimately
with its earnest efforts, CBI traced Adithya and his mother<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Vijayashree
Voora in Chennai on October 24, 2009 and brought them<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
Delhi and produced the child along with his mother at the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">residential
office of one of us (Tarun Chatterjee, J.) on October 25,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2009.
On that day, the CBI authorities were directed to keep the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">under
their custody and produce him before the Court on October 27,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2009.
Respondent no. 6 was also directed to be produced on that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">date.
On October 27, 2009, the matter was adjourned for November<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4,
2009 since respondent no.6 wanted to engage a lawyer and file a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">counter
affidavit. On November 4, 2009, matter was adjourned to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">November
10, 2009 and then to November 12, 2009. The petitioner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
permitted to meet the child for one hour on November 10, 2009<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
November 12, 2009. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 6 has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">filed
counter affidavit in opposition to the habeas corpus petition and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
has filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no.6.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3. We
heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior counsel for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
petitioner and Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no. 6. Now since minor Adithya has been produced, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">only
question that remains to be considered is with regard to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">prayer
made by the petitioner for handing over the custody of minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
to him with his passport.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4.
But before we do that, it is necessary to notice few<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">material
facts. Dr. V. Ravi Chandran - petitioner - is an American<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">citizen.
He and respondent no. 6 got married on December 14, 2000<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">at
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites. On July 1,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2002,
Adithya was born in United States of America. In the month of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">July
2003, respondent no. 6 approached the New York State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Supreme
Court for divorce and dissolution of marriage. A consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
governing the issues of custody and guardianship of minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
was passed by the New York State Supreme Court on April<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18,
2005. The Court granted joint custody of the child to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and respondent no. 6 and it was stipulated in the order to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">keep
the other party informed about the whereabouts of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">On
July 28, 2005, a Separation Agreement was entered between the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and respondent no.6 for distribution of marital property,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">spouse
maintenance and child support. As regards custody of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
son Adithya and parenting time, the petitioner and respondent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">no. 6
consented to the order dated April 18, 2005. On September 8,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2005,
the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.6 was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">dissolved
by the New York State Supreme Court. Child custody order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">dated
April 18, 2005 was incorporated in that order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5.
Upon the petition for modification of custody filed by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and the petition for enforcement filed by him and upon the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petition
for enforcement filed by respondent no.6 before the Family<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of the State of New York, on June 18, 2007, upon the consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
both parties, inter - alia, the following order came to be passed:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;ORDERED,
the parties shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child;
and it is further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> ORDERED, that commencing during August 2007,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
shall reside in Allen, Texas; and it is further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that the parties acknowledge that it is the intention of the parties to reside
within the same community. As such, it is the mother's current intention to
relocate to Texas, within a forty (40) mile radius of the father's residence.
If the mother does relocate to a forty (40) mile radius of the father's
residence (which shall be within a twenty (20) mile radius from the child's
school),, the parties shall equally share physical custody of Adithya. The
parties shall alternate physical custody on a weekly basis, with the exchange
being on Friday, at the end of the School day, or at the time when school would
ordinarily let out in the event that there is no school on Friday;
................ .....................................................................
.....................................................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that in the event that the mother does not relocate within forty (40) miles
from the father's residence located in Allen, Texas (and within twenty (20)
miles of Adithya's school), the mother shall have custodial time with the minor
child, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">A. On
Alternating weekends from Friday, at the end of the school day until Monday,
prior to the beginning of school, commencing during the first week of
September, 2007. Such periods of custodial time shall take place within forty
(40) miles from the father's residence located in Allen, Texas. In the event
that there is no school on the Friday of the mother's weekend, she shall have
custodial time with the child beginning at 7.00 a.m. on Friday morning, and, in
the event that there is no school on Monday of the mother's custodial weekend,
she shall have custodial time until 5.00 p.m. on Monday, and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">B.
For ten (10) consecutive days during Spring vacation from school; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">C.
For the entirety of the Christmas recess from School, except for Christmas Eve
and Christmas day, which shall be with the father. In the event that the school
recess is prior to Christmas Eve, the mother shall have the right to have
custodial time during those recessed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> days to long as she produces the child at the
father's residence for Christmas Eve and Christmas day ; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">D.
During the following holidays:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">i)
Mother's birthday, which is on April 25;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ii)
Mother's Day;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">iii)
Hindu Festival of Diwali and Deepavali;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">iv)
Adithya's birthday (July 1) in alternating years;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">v)
Thanks giving in alternating years (so that the mother has custodial time
during even -<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">numbered
years and the father has custodial<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">time
during odd - numbered years);<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">vi)
New Year's Day in alternating years (so that the mother has custodial time
during even -<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">numbered
years and the father has custodial<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">time
during odd -numbered years) ;............ .................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">............................................................
ORDERED, that the parties shall share the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">summer
recess from school so that the mother has custodial time for a total of up to
fifty (50) days on a schedule so that each party has custodial time for 4
consecutive weeks, with the mother's custodial time commencing on the Monday
following the final day of school..........<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
for the summer of 2007, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">mother
shall have custodial time from June 18 until June 20; the father shall have
custodial time from June 20 until June 24; the mother shall have custodial time
from June 25 until July 1; the father shall have custodial time from July 1
until July 6; and the mother shall then have custodial time from July 6 until
August 3 and she shall be solely responsible for transporting the child to the
father's residence in Allen, Texas on August 3. The father shall have custodial
time until the commencement of school. Thereafter the father shall continue to
have custodial time until such time as the mother either a) returns from India
and/or begins her alternating weekly<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> schedule as set froth herein, or b) moves
within 40 miles of the father's residence in Allen, Texas and commences her
custodial time during alternating weeks;....................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">.............................................................
.............................................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that each party agrees that they<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">shall
provide the other parent with a phone number and address where the child will
be located at all time, and that the other parent shall have reasonable and
regular telephone communication with the minor child; and it is further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that each party agrees to provide<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
other party with the child's passport during each custodial exchange of the
minor child, and that each party shall sign and deliver to the other, whatever
written authorization may be necessary for travel with the child within the Continental
United States or
abroad;&quot;..............................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6. On
June 28, 2007 respondent no.6 brought minor Adithya<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
India informing the petitioner that she would be residing with her<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">parents
in Chennai. On August 08, 2007, the petitioner filed the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petition
for modification (Custody) and Violation Petition (Custody)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">before
the Family Court of the State of New York on which a show<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">cause
notice came to be issued to respondent no.6. On that very<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">day,
the petitioner was granted temporary sole legal and physical<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">custody
of Adithya and respondent no. 6 was directed to immediately<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">turn
over the minor child and his passport to the petitioner and further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">her
custodial time with the minor child was suspended and it was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ordered
that the issue of custody of Adithya shall be heard in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">jurisdiction
of the United States Courts, specifically, the Albany<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">County
Family Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7. It
transpires that the Family Court of the State of New<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">York
has issued child abuse non-bailable warrants against<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no.6.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8. In
the backdrop of the aforenoticed facts, we have to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consider--now
since the child has been produced--what should be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
appropriate order in the facts and circumstances keeping in mind<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
interest of the child and the orders of the courts of the country of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">which
the child is a national.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9. In
re B--'s Settlement,1 Chancery Division was concerned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">with
an application for custody by the father of an infant who had<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">been
made a ward of court. The father was a Belgian national and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
mother a British national who took Belgian nationality on marriage<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
him. The infant was born in Belgium. The mother was granted a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">divorce
by a judgment of the Court in Belgium, but the judgment was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">reversed
and the father became entitled to custody by the common<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1940}
Ch. 54<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">law
of Belgium. The mother, who had gone to live in England, visited<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Belgium
and was by arrangement given the custody of the infant for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">some
days. She took him to England and did not return him. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">infant
had been living with mother in England for nearly two years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
father began divorce proceedings in Belgium, and the Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">appointed
him guardian. Pending the proceedings, the Court gave<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">him
the custody and ordered the mother to return the infant within<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">twenty-four
hours of service of the order on her. She did not return<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
infant. The Correctional Court in Brussels fined her for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">disobedience
and sentenced her to imprisonment should the fine be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">not
paid. The Correctional Court also confirmed the custody order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">In
the backdrop of these facts, the summons taken out by the father<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
custody of the infant be given to him came up before Morton, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">who
after hearing the parties and in view of the provisions of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Guardianship
of Infants Act, 1925 observed thus:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;...At
the moment my feeling is very strong that, even assuming in the father's favour
that there is nothing in his character or habits which would render him
unfitted to have the custody of the child, the welfare of the child requires,
in all the circumstances as they exist, that he should remain in England for
the time being..............................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> In the present case the position is that
nearly two years ago, when the child was already in England, an interlocutory
order was made by the Divorce Court in Belgium giving the custody of the child
to the father I do not know how far, if at all, the matter was considered on
the footing of what was best for the child at that time, or whether it was
regarded as a matter of course that the father, being the guardian by the
common law of Belgium and the applicant in the divorce proceedings and the only
parent in Belgium, should be given the custody. I cannot regard that order as
rendering it in any way improper or contrary to the comity of nations if I now
consider, when the boy has been in this country for nearly two years, what is
in the best interests of the boy. I do not think it would be right for the
Court, exercising its jurisdiction over a ward who is in this country, although
he is a Belgian national, blindly to follow the order made in Belgium on
October 5, 1937. I think the present case differs from Nugent v. Vetzera
{FN10}, the case that was before Page Wood V.-C., and it is to be observed that
even in that case, and in the special circumstances of that case, the
Vice-Chancellor guarded himself against anything like abdication of the control
of this Court over its wards. It does not appear what the Vice-Chancellor's
view would have been if there had been evidence, for example, that it would be
most detrimental to the health and well-being of the children if they were
removed from England and sent to
Austria..................................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">........I
ought to give due weight to any views formed by the Courts of the country
whereof the infant is a national. But I desire to say quite plainly that in my
view this Court is bound in every case, without exception, to treat the welfare
of its ward as being the first and paramount consideration, whatever orders may
have been made by the Courts of any other country.&quot;..................
.................. .............<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
In Mark T. Mc.Kee vs. Eyelyn McKee2, the Privy Council<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
concerned with an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">That
was a case where the parents of the infant were American<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1951}
A.C. 352<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">citizens.
They were married in America and to whom a son was born<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
California in July 1940. They separated in December 1940 and on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">September
4, 1941, executed an agreement which provided,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">inter-
alia, that neither of them should remove the child out of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States without the written permission of the other. By a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">judgment
of December 17, 1942, in divorce proceedings before the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Superior
Court of the State of California, the custody of the child was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">awarded
to the father. On August 1, 1945, following applications by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
father and the mother, the previous order as to custody was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">modified
to provide full custody of the child to the mother with right of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">reasonable
visitation to the father. Thereafter, and without the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consent
or knowledge of the mother, the father went from the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America with the child into the Province of Ontario.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
mother thereupon instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Supreme
Court of Ontario seeking to have the child delivered to her.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Wells,
J., before whom the matter came held that infant's best<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">interests
would be served in the custody of his father. The Court of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Appeal
for Ontario dismissed the appeal preferred by the mother.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">However,
the Supreme Court of Canada by majority judgment<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">allowed
the appeal of the mother and set aside the order of custody<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
child to the father. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">at
the instance of the father, the Privy Council held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;..........For,
after reaffirming &quot;the well established general rule that in all
questions relating to the custody of an infant the paramount consideration is
the welfare of the infant&quot;, he observed that no case had been referred
to which established the proposition that, where the facts were such as he
found them to exist in the case, the salient features of which have been
stated, a parent by the simple expedient of taking the child with him across
the border into Ontario for the sole purpose of avoiding obedience to the
judgment of the court, whose jurisdiction he himself invoked, becomes
&quot;entitled as of right to have the whole question retried in our courts
and to have them reach a anew and independent judgment as to what is best for
the infant&quot;. and it is, in effect, because he held that the father had
no such right that the judge allowed the appeal of the mother, and that the
Supreme Court made the order already referred to. But with great respect to the
judge, this was not the question which had to be determined. It is possible
that a case might arise in which it appeared to a court, before which the
question of custody of an infant came, that it was in the best interests of
that infant that it should not look beyond the circumstances in which its
jurisdiction was invoked and for that reason give effect to the foreign
judgment without further inquiry. But it is the negation of the proposition,
from which every judgment in this case has proceeded, namely, that the infant's
welfare is the paramount consideration, to say that where the trial judge has
in his discretion thought fit not to take the drastic course above indicated,
but to examine all the circumstances and form an independent judgment, his
decision ought for that reason to be overruled. Once it is conceded that the
court of Ontario had jurisdiction to entertain the question of custody and that
it need not blindly follow an order made by a foreign court, the consequence
cannot be escaped that it must form an independent judgment on the question,
though in doing so it will give proper weight to the foreign judgment. What is
the proper weight will depend on the circumstances of each case. It may be
that, if the matter comes before the court of Ontario within a very short time
of the foreign judgment and there is no new circumstance to be considered, the
weight may be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> so great that such an order as the Supreme
Court made in this case could be justified. But if so, it would be not because
the court of Ontario, having assumed jurisdiction, then abdicated it, but
because in the exercise of its jurisdiction it determined what was for the
benefit of the infant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It
cannot be ignored that such consequences might follow as are suggested by
Cartwright, J. The disappointed parent might meet stratagem by stratagem and,
taking the child into the Province of Manitoba, invoke the protection of its
courts, whose duty it would then be to determine the question of custody. That
is a consideration which, with others, must be weighed by the trial judge. It
is not, perhaps, a consideration which in the present case should have weighed
heavily.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It
has been said that the weight or persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must
depend on the circumstances of each case. In the present case there was ample
reason for the trial judge, in the first place, forming the opinion that he
should not take the drastic course of following it without independent inquiry
and, in the second place, coming to a different conclusion as to what was for
the infant's benefit.&quot;...................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11.
The aforesaid two cases came up for consideration in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Harben
vs. Harben3, wherein Sachs J. observed as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;It
has always been the practice of this court to ensure that a parent should not
gain advantage by the use of fraud or force in relation to the kidnapping of
children from the care of the other spouse, save perhaps where there is some
quite overwhelming reason in the children's interest why the status quo should
not be restored by the court before deciding further issues. In the present
case I am concerned with three young children, two of whom are girls and the
youngest is aged only three. It is a particularly wicked thing to snatch such
children from the care of a mother, and, in saying that, I have in mind not
merely the mother's position but the harm that can be done 3<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1957}
1. W.L.R. 261<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> to the children. No affidavit of the husband
tendering either his regrets or any vestige of excuse for his action has been
proffered. Further, as I have already mentioned, when first I asked Mr. Syms
what was the nature of the case which he might wish to make, if so minded, for
depriving these children of a mother's care, he only spoke of her association
with a certain man and never suggested that she had in any way whatsoever
failed to look after the children properly.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12.
In Kernot vs. Kernot4 , the facts were thus: In May 1961,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
plaintiff mother, an Italian lady, married an English man in Italy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">where
both were residents. A boy was born there on March 29, 1962.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">On
October 19, 1963, they obtained in Italian Court a separation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
by consent providing therein that custody of the child would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">remain
with father, with rights of access to the mother . On October<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29,
1963, the father brought the infant to England with intention to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">make
England his home. The mother commenced wardship<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">proceedings
in which she brought a motion for an order that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">father
return the infant to her in Italy. She also prayed for restraint<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
against him from taking the infant out of her care. Buckley, J. in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">these
facts held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;So
that even where a foreign court has made an order on the merits - which is not
the present case, because the only order which has been made was a consent
order without any investigation of the merits by the Italian court - that
domestic court before whom the matter comes (the Ontario 4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1965}
Ch.217<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> court in the case to which I have just
referred, or this court in the case before me) is bound to consider what is in
the best interests of the infant; and although the order of the foreign court
will be attended to as one of the circumstances to be taken into account it is
not conclusive one way or the other. How much stronger must the duty of this
court be to entertain the case where the foreign court has not made any order
based on any investigation of the case on its merits.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13.
In re H. (Infants)5, the Court of Appeal was concerned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">with
two American boys whose divorced parents were both citizens<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
United States of America. On December 11, 1964, the Supreme<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of New York State made a consent order directing that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">two
boys whose custody had been given to the mother should be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">maintained
in her apartment in New York and not be removed from<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">a 50
miles' radius of Peekskill without the prior written consent of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
father. However, the mother in March 1965 brought these boys<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
England and bought a house for herself and children in June<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1965.
On June 15, 1965, the New York Court ordered the children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to be
returned to New York. The mother started wardship<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">proceedings
in the English court. The father took out motion asking<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
mother that the two children should be delivered into his care,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
he should be at liberty to convey them to New York and that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">wardship
of the children should be discharged. The Trial Judge held 5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1966)
1 W.L.R. 381 = (1966) 1 All.E.R. 886<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
the justice of the case required the children to be returned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">without
delay to the jurisdiction of the New York court, so that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">question
of where and with whom they should live might be decided<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">as
soon as possible by that court. The mother appealed to the Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
Appeal. Willmer L.J. and Harman L.J. by their separate judgments<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">affirmed
the view of the Trial Judge and held that the proper order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
to send these two boys back to their State of New York, where<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">they
belong (and where the Supreme Court is already seized of their<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">case),
and more especially so having regard to the fact that they<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">have
been kept in flagrant contempt of New York Court's order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Willmer
L.J. agreed with the remark of Cross J. where he said:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
sudden and unauthorized removal of children from one country to another is far
too frequent nowadays, and as it seems to me it is the duty of all courts in
all countries to do all they can to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain an
advantage by his wrongdoing.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Willmer
L.J. went on to hold:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
judge took the view (and I think it was the right view) that in a case such as
the present it was not necessary to go into all the disputed questions between
the parents, but that he ought to send these boys back to their own country to
be dealt with by the court of their own country, provided that he was satisfied
(as he was satisfied, having seen the father himself, and having had the
benefit of the view expressed on behalf of the Official Solicitor) that they
would come to no harm if the father took them back to the United States; and
that this was so, even though it might<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> subsequently turn out, after all the merits of
the case had been thoroughly thrashed out in the court in New York, that it
would perhaps be better after all for the boys to reside in England and see
little or nothing of their father.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Harman
L.J. in his separate judgment held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;.......But
if he chose to take the course which the judge here took in the interests of
the children , as he thought, of sending them back to the United States with no
more inquiry into the matter than to ensure, so far as he could, that there was
no danger to their moral or physical health in taking that course, I am of
opinion that he was amply justified, and that that was the right way in which
to approach the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">These
children had been the subject of an order (it is true made by consent) made in
the courts of their own country in December, 1964. It was only three months
later that the mother flouted that order, deceived her own advisers and
deceived the court , and brought the children here with the object of taking
them right out of their father's life and depriving him altogether of their
society. The interval is so short that it seems to me that the court inevitably
was bound to view the matter through those spectacles; that is to say, that the
order having been made so shortly before, and there being no difference in the
circumstances in the three months which had elapsed , there was no
justification for the course which the mother had taken, and that she was not
entitled to seek to bolster her own wrong by seeking the assistance of this
court in perpetuating that position, and seeking to change the situation to the
father's disadvantage.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14.
In re. L (minors)6, the Court of Appeal was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerned
with the custody of the foreign children who were<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">removed
from foreign jurisdiction by one parent. That was a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">case
where a German national domiciled and resident in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Germany
married an English woman. Their matrimonial home 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1974)
1 All ER 913<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
Germany and the two children were born out of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">wedlock
and brought up in Germany. The lady became<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">unhappy
in her married life and in August, 1972, she brought<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">her
children to England with an intention of permanently<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">establishing
herself and the children in England. She obtained<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">residential
employment in the school in England and the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
were accommodated at the school. The children not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">having
returned to Germany, the father came to England to find<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">them.
On October 25, 1972, the mother issued an originating<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">summons
making them wards of court. The trial judge found<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
the children should be brought up by their mother and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">treating
the case as a `kidnapping' class of case, approached<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
matter by observing that in such a case where the children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">were
foreign children, who had moved in a foreign home, their<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">life
should continue in what were their natural surroundings,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">unless
it appeared to the court that it would be harmful to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
if they were returned. He concluded that in view of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">arrangements
which their father could make for them, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
would not be harmed by being returned. He,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">accordingly,
ordered that they be returned to Germany and that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">they
remain in their father's custody until further order. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">mother
appealed, contending that in every case the welfare of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
child was the first and paramount consideration and that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">welfare
of the children would be best served by staying with<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">their
mother in England. Buckley, LJ in his detailed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consideration
of the matter, wherein he referred to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">aforenoticed
decisions and few other decisions as well, held as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">follows
:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;.......Where
the court has embarked on a full-scale investigation of that facts, the
applicable principles, in my view, do not differ from those which apply to any
other wardship case. The action of one party in kidnapping the child is
doubtless one of the circumstances to be taken into account, any may be a
circumstance of great weight; the weight to be attributed to it must depend on
the circumstances of the particular case. The court may conclude that
notwithstanding the conduct of the `kidnapper' the child should remain in his
or her care (McKee v. McKee, Re E (an infant) and Re. T.A. (infants), where the
order was merely interim); or it may conclude that the child should be returned
to his or her native country or the jurisdiction from which he or she has been
removed. Where a court makes a summary order for the return of a child to a
foreign country without investigating the merits, the same principles, in my
judgment apply, but the decision must be justified on somewhat different
grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">..............................................................................
...........The judge may well be persuaded that it would be better for the
child that those merits should be investigated in a court in his native country
than that he should spend in this country the period which must necessarily
elapse before all the evidence can be assembled for adjudication here. Anyone
who has had experience of the exercise of this delicate jurisdiction knows what
complications can result from a child developing roots in new soil, and what
conflicts this can occasion in the child's own life. Such roots can grow
rapidly. An order that the child should be returned forthwith to the country
from which he has been removed in the expectation that any dispute about his
custody will be satisfactorily<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> resolved in the courts of that country may
well be regarded as being in the best interests of the child......&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15.
In re. L. (minors)6, the Court of Appeal has made a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">distinction
between cases, where the court considers the facts and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">fully
investigates the merits of a dispute, in a wardship matter in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">which
the welfare of the child concerned is not the only consideration<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">but
is the first and paramount consideration, and cases where the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
do not embark on a full-scale investigation of the facts and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">make
a summary order for the return of a child to a foreign country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">without
investigating the merits. In this regard, Buckley, L.J. noticed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">what
was indicated by the Privy Council in McKee v. McKee2 that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">there
may be cases in which it is proper for a court in one jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
make an order directing that a child be returned to a foreign<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">jurisdiction
without investigating the merits of the dispute relating to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
care of the child on the ground that such an order is in the best<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">interest
of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16.
This Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Sandhu
and Another7 was concerned with the custody of a child--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">British
citizen by birth--to the parents of Indian citizens, who after<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1984)
3 SCC 698<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">their
marriage settled in England. The child was removed by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">husband
from the house when the wife was in the factory where she<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
working and brought him to India. The wife obtained an order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">under
Section 41(English) Supreme Court Act, 1981 whereby the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">husband
was directed to handover the custody of the boy to her. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">said
order was later on confirmed by the High Court in England. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">wife
then came to India and filed a writ petition under Article 226 in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
High Court praying for production and custody of the child. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">High
Court dismissed her writ petition against which the wife<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">appealed
before this Court. Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. (as he then was)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">speaking
for the Court held thus :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
modern theory of Conflict of Laws recognises and, in any event, prefers the
jurisdiction of the State which has the most intimate contact with the issues
arising in the case. Jurisdiction is not attracted by the operation or creation
of fortuitous circumstances such as the circumstance as to where the child,
whose custody is in issue, is brought or for the time being lodged. To allow
the assumption of jurisdiction by another State in such circumstances will only
result in encouraging forum-shopping. Ordinarily, jurisdiction must follow upon
functional lines. That is to say, for example, that in matters relating to
matrimony and custody, the law of that place must govern which has the closest
concern with the well-being of the spouses and the welfare of the offsprings of
marriage. The spouses in this case had made England their home where this boy
was born to them. The father cannot deprive the English Court of its
jurisdiction to decide upon his custody by removing him to India, not in the
normal movement of the matrimonial home but, by an act which was gravely
detrimental to the peace of that home. The fact that the matrimonial home of
the spouses was in England, establishes sufficient contacts or ties with that
State in order to make it reasonable and just for the courts of that State to
assume jurisdiction to enforce obligations which were<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> incurred therein by the spouses. (See
International Shoe Company v. State of Washington which was not a matrimonial
case but which is regarded as the fountainhead of the subsequent developments
of jurisdictional issues like the one involved in the instant case.) It is our
duty and function to protect the wife against the burden of litigating in an
inconvenient forum which she and her husband had left voluntarily in order to
make their living in England, where they gave birth to this unfortunate
boy.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17.
In Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Another8,
this Court held that it was the duty of courts in all countries<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
see that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">country
does not gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">para
9 of the report, this Court considered the decision of the Court of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Appeal
in re H.5 and approved the same in the following words:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;9.
In Re H. (infants) [(1966) 1 All ER 886] the Court of Appeal in England had
occasion to consider a somewhat similar question. That case concerned the
abduction to England of two minor boys who were American citizens. The father
was a natural- born American citizen and the mother, though of Scottish origin,
had been resident for 20 years in the United States of America. They were
divorced in 1953 by a decree in Mexico, which embodied provisions entrusting
the custody of the two boys to the mother with liberal access to the father. By
an amendment made in that order in December 1964, a provision was incorporated
that the boys should reside at all times in the State of New York and should at
all times be under the control and jurisdiction of the State of New York. In
March 1965, the mother removed the boys to England, without having obtained the
approval of the New York court, and without having consulted the father; she
purchased a house in England with the intention of remaining there permanently
and of cutting off all contacts with the father. She ignored an order made in
June 1965, by the Supreme Court of New York State to return the boys there. On
a motion on notice given by the father in the Chancery Division of the Court in
England, the trial Judge Cross, J. directed that since the children were
American children and the 8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1987)
1 SCC 42<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> American court was the proper court to decide
the issue of custody, and as it was the duty of courts in all countries to see
that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of their country did not
gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing, the court without going into the
merits of the question as to where and with whom the children should live,
would order that the children should go back to America. In the appeal filed
against the said judgment in the Court of Appeal, Willmer, L.J. while
dismissing the appeal extracted with approval the following passage from the
judgment of Cross, J. [(1965) 3 All ER at p. 912. (Ed. : Source of the second
quoted para could not be traced.)]:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
sudden and unauthorised removal of children from one country to another is far
too frequent nowadays, and as it seems to me, it is the duty of all courts in
all countries to do all they can to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain an
advantage by his wrongdoing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
courts in all countries ought, as I see it, to be careful not to do anything to
encourage this tendency. This substitution of self-help for due process of law
in this field can only harm the interests of wards generally, and a Judge
should, as I see it, pay regard to the orders of the proper foreign court
unless he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would inflict
serious harm on the child.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
With respect we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid enunciation of the
principles of law to be applied by the courts in situations such as
this.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18.
In the case of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/672255/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Dhanwanti
Joshi v. Madhav Unde9,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>this<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
was again concerned with the matter relating to removal of a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child
from one country to another contrary to custody order of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
from where the child was removed. This court considered<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">English
decisions, inter alia, McKee v. McKee2 and H. (infants), re.5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
also noticed the decision of this Court in Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
observed as follows :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1998)
1 SCC 112<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> &quot;28. The leading case in this behalf
is the one rendered by the Privy Council in 1951, in McKee v. McKee [(1951) AC
352]. In that case, the parties, who were American citizens, were married in
USA in 1933 and lived there till December 1946. But they had separated in
December 1940. On 17-12-1941, a decree of divorce was passed in USA and custody
of the child was given to the father and later varied in favour of the mother.
At that stage, the father took away the child to Canada. In habeas corpus
proceedings by the mother, though initially the decisions of lower courts went
against her, the Supreme Court of Canada gave her custody but the said Court
held that the father could not have the question of custody retried in Canada
once the question was adjudicated in favour of the mother in the USA earlier.
On appeal to the Privy Council, Lord Simonds held that in proceedings relating
to custody before the Canadian Court, the welfare and happiness of the infant
was of paramount consideration and the order of a foreign court in USA as to
his custody can be given due weight in the circumstances of the case, but such
an order of a foreign court was only one of the facts which must be taken into
consideration. It was further held that it was the duty of the Canadian Court
to form an independent judgment on the merits of the matter in regard to the
welfare of the child. The order of the foreign court in US would yield to the
welfare of the child. &quot;Comity of courts demanded not its enforcement,
but its grave consideration&quot;. This case arising from Canada which lays
down the law for Canada and U.K. has been consistently followed in latter
cases. This view was reiterated by the House of Lords in J v. C (1970 AC 668).
This is the law also in USA (see 24 American Jurisprudence, para 1001) and
Australia. (See Khamis v. Khamis [(1978) 4 Fam LR 410 (Full Court) (Aus)].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29.
However, there is an apparent contradiction between the above view and the one
expressed in H. (infants), Re[(1966) 1 All ER 886] and in E. (an infant), Re
[(1967) 1 All ER 881] to the effect that the court in the country to which the
child is removed will send back the child to the country from which the child
has been removed. This apparent conflict was explained and resolved by the
Court of Appeal in 1974 in L. (minors) (wardship : jurisdiction), Re [(1974) 1
All ER 913, CA] and in R. (minors) (wardship : jurisdiction), Re [(1981) 2 FLR
416 (CA)]. It was held by the Court of Appeal in L., Re [(1974) 1 All ER 913,
CA] that the view in McKee v. McKee [1951 A.C. 352 : (1951) All ER 942] is
still the correct view and that the limited question which arose in the latter
decisions was whether the court in the country to which the child was removed
could conduct (a) a summary inquiry or (b) an elaborate inquiry on the question
of custody. In the case of (a) a summary inquiry, the court would return
custody to the country from which the child was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">removed
unless such return could be shown to be harmful to the child. In the case of
(b) an elaborate inquiry, the court could go into the merits as to where the
permanent welfare lay and ignore the order of the foreign court or treat the
fact of removal of the child from another country as only one of the
circumstances. The crucial question as to whether the Court (in the country to
which the child is removed) would exercise the summary or elaborate procedure
is to be determined according to the child's welfare. The summary jurisdiction
to return the child is invoked, for example, if the child had been removed from
its native land and removed to another country where, maybe, his native
language is not spoken, or the child gets divorced from the social customs and
contacts to which he has been accustomed, or if its education in his native
land is interrupted and the child is being subjected to a foreign system of
education, -- for these are all acts which could psychologically disturb the
child. Again the summary jurisdiction is exercised only if the court to which
the child has been removed is moved promptly and quickly, for in that event,
the Judge may well be persuaded that it would be better for the child that
those merits should be investigated in a court in his native country on the
expectation that an early decision in the native country could be in the
interests of the child before the child could develop roots in the country to
which he had been removed. Alternatively, the said court might think of
conducting an elaborate inquiry on merits and have regard to the other facts of
the case and the time that has lapsed after the removal of the child and
consider if it would be in the interests of the child not to have it returned
to the country from which it had been removed. In that event, the unauthorised
removal of the child from the native country would not come in the way of the
court in the country to which the child has been removed, to ignore the removal
and independently consider whether the sending back of the child to its native
country would be in the paramount interests of the child. (See Rayden &amp;
Jackson, 15th Edn., 1988, pp. 1477-79; Bromley, Family law, 7th Edn., 1987.) In
R. (minors) (wardship : jurisdiction), Re [(1981) 2 FLR 416 (CA)] it has been
firmly held that the concept of forum conveniens has no place in wardship
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">30.
We may here state that this Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/271434/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>[(1987)
1 SCC 42 : 1987 SCC (Crl.) 13] while dealing with a child removed by the father
from USA contrary to the custody orders of the US Court directed that the child
be sent back to USA to the mother not only because of the principle of comity
but also because, on facts, -- which were independently considered -- it was in
the interests of the child to be sent back to the native State. There the
removal of the child by the father and the mother's<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> application in India were within six months.
In that context, this Court referred to H. (infants), Re which case, as pointed
out by us above has been explained in L. Re as a case where the Court thought
it fit to exercise its summary jurisdiction in the interests of the child. Be
that as it may, the general principles laid down in McKee v. McKee and J v. C
and the distinction between summary and elaborate inquiries as stated in L.
(infants), Re are today well settled in UK, Canada, Australia and the USA. The
same principles apply in our country. Therefore nothing precludes the Indian
courts from considering the question on merits, having regard to the delay from
1984 -- even assuming that the earlier orders passed in India do not operate as
constructive res judicata.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">However,
in view of the fact that the child had lived with his<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">mother
in India for nearly twelve years, this Court held that it would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">not
exercise a summary jurisdiction to return the child to United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America on the ground that its removal from USA in 1984<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
contrary to orders of U.S. Courts. It was also held that whenever<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">a
question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of a minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child,
matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">best
serve the interest of the minor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19.
In the case of Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma10, this<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
was seized with a matter where the mother had removed the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
from U.S.A. despite the order of the American Court. It was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">held
:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(2000)
3 SCC 14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> &quot;6. Therefore, it will not be proper
to be guided entirely by the fact that the appellant Sarita had removed the
children from U.S.A. despite the order of the Court of that country. So also,
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the
American Court though a relevant factor, cannot override the consideration of
welfare of the minor children. We have already stated earlier that in U.S.A.
respondent Sushil is staying along with his mother aged about 80 years. There
is no one else in the family. The respondent appears to be in the habit of
taking excessive alcohol. Though it is true that both the children have
American citizenship and there is a possibility that in U.S.A they may be able
to get better education, it is doubtful if the respondent will be in a position
to take proper care of the children when they are so young. Out of them, one is
a female child. She is aged about 5 years. Ordinarily, a female child should be
allowed to remain with the mother so that she can be properly looked after. It
is also not desirable that two children are separated from each other. If a
female child has to stay with the mother, it will be in the interest of both
the children that they both stay with the mother. Here in India also proper
care of the children is taken and they are at present studying in good schools.
We have not found the appellant wanting in taking proper care of the children.
Both the children have a desire to stay with the mother. At the same time it
must be said that the son, who is elder then the daughter, has good feelings
for his father also. Considering all the aspects relating to the welfare of the
children, we are of the opinion that in spite of the order passed by the Court
in U.S.A. it was not proper for the High Court to have allowed the habeas
corpus writ petition and directed the appellant to hand over custody of the
children to the respondent and permit him to take them away to U.S.A. What
would be in the interest of the children requires a full and thorough inquiry
and, therefore, the High Court should have directed the respondent to initiate
appropriate proceedings in which such an inquiry can be held. Still there is
some possibility of the mother returning to U.S.A. in the interest of the
children. Therefore, we do not desire to say anything more regarding
entitlement of the custody of the children. The chances of the appellant
returning to U.S.A. with the children would depend upon the joint efforts of
the appellant and the respondent to get the arrest warrant cancelled by
explaining to the Court in U.S.A. the circumstances under which she had left
U.S.A. with the children without taking permission of the Court. There is a
possibility that both of them may thereafter be able to approach the Court
which passed the decree to suitably modify the order with respect to the
custody of the children and visitation rights.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">27<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20.
While dealing with a case of custody of a child removed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">by a
parent from one country to another in contravention to the orders<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
in the country to which child has been removed must first<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consider
the question whether the court could conduct an elaborate<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">enquiry
on the question of custody or by dealing with the matter<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">summarily
order a parent to return custody of the child to the country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">from
which the child was removed and all aspects relating to child's<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">welfare
be investigated in a court in his own country. Should the court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">take
a view that an elaborate enquiry is necessary, obviously the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
is bound to consider the welfare and happiness of the child as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
paramount consideration and go into all relevant aspects of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">welfare
of child including stability and security, loving and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">understanding
care and guidance and full development of the child's<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">character,
personality and talents. While doing so, the order of a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">foreign
court as to his custody may be given due weight; the weight<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">circumstances
of each case. However, in a case where the court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">decides
to exercise its jurisdiction summarily to return the child to his<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">own
country, keeping in view the jurisdiction of the Court in the native<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">28<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">country
which has the closest concern and the most intimate contact<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">with
the issues arising in the case, the court may leave the aspects<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">relating
to the welfare of the child to be investigated by the court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">his
own native country as that could be in the best interest of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child.
The indication given in McKee v. McKee2 that there may be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">cases
in which it is proper for a court in one jurisdiction to make an<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
directing that a child be returned to a foreign jurisdiction without<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">investigating
the merits of the dispute relating to the care of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">on
the ground that such an order is in the best interest of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">has
been explained in re. L (minors)6 and the said view has been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">approved
by this Court in Dhanwanti Joshi9. Similar view taken by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of Appeal in re. H5 has been approved by this Court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Elizabeth
Dinshaw8.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21.
Do the facts and circumstances of the present case<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">warrant
an elaborate enquiry into the question of custody of minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
and should the parties be relegated to the said procedure<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">before
appropriate forum in this country in this regard? In our<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">judgment,
this is not required. Admittedly, Adithya is an American<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">citizen,
born and brought up in United States of America. He has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">spent
his initial years there. The natural habitat of Adithya is in United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America. As a matter of fact, keeping in view the welfare<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
happiness of the child and in his best interest, the parties have<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">obtained
series of consent orders concerning his custody/parenting<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">rights,
maintenance etc. from the competent courts of jurisdiction in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">America.
Initially, on April 18, 2005, a consent order governing the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">issues
of custody and guardianship of minor Adithya was passed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
New York State Supreme Court whereunder the court granted<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">joint
custody of the child to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 and it<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">whereabouts
of the child. In a separation agreement entered into<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">between
the parties on July 28, 2005, the consent order dated April<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18,
2005 regarding custody of minor son Adithya continued. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">September
8, 2005 order whereby the marriage between the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and respondent no. 6 was dissolved by the New York State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Supreme
Court, again the child custody order dated April 18, 2005<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
incorporated. Then the petitioner and respondent no. 6 agreed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">for
modification of the custody order and, accordingly, the Family<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of the State of New York on June 18, 2007 ordered that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">parties
shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
and, in this regard, a comprehensive arrangement in respect<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">30<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the custody of the child has been made. The fact that all orders<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerning
the custody of the minor child Adithya have been passed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">by
American courts by consent of the parties shows that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">objections
raised by respondent no. 6 in counter affidavit about<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">deprivation
of basic rights of the child by the petitioner in the past;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">failure
of petitioner to give medication to the child; denial of education<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
the minor child; deprivation of stable environment to the minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child;
and child abuse are hollow and without any substance. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">objection
raised by the respondent no. 6 in the counter affidavit that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
American courts which passed the order/decree had no<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">jurisdiction
and being inconsistent to Indian laws cannot be executed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
India also prima facie does not seem to have any merit since<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">despite
the fact that the respondent no. 6 has been staying in India<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">for
more than two years, she has not pursued any legal proceeding<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">for
the sole custody of the minor Adithya or for declaration that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">orders
passed by the American courts concerning the custody of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
child Adithya are null and void and without jurisdiction. Rather<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">it
transpires from the counter affidavit that initially respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">initiated
the proceedings under Guardianship and Wards Act but later<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">on
withdrew the same. The facts and circumstances noticed above<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">31<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">leave
no manner of doubt that merely because the child has been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">brought
to India by respondent no. 6, the custody issue concerning<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
child Adithya does not deserve to be gone into by the courts in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">India
and it would be in accord with principles of comity as well as on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">facts
to return the child back to the United States of America from<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">where
he has been removed and enable the parties to establish the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">case
before the courts in the native State of the child, i.e. United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America for modification of the existing custody orders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">There
is nothing on record which may even remotely suggest that it<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">would
be harmful for the child to be returned to his native country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22.
It is true that child Adithya has been in India for almost<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">two
years since he was removed by the mother--respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">--contrary
to the custody orders of the U.S. court passed by consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the parties. It is also true that one of the factors to be kept in mind<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
exercise of summary jurisdiction in the interest of child is that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">application
for custody/return of the child is made promptly and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">quickly
after the child has been removed. This is so because any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">delay
may result in child developing roots in the country to which he<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">has
been removed. From the counter affidavit that has been filed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no. 6, it is apparent that in last two years child Adithya did<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">32<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">not
have education at one place. He has moved from one school to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">another.
He was admitted in school at Dehradun by respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">but
then removed within few months. In the month of June, 2009, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child
has been admitted in some school at Chennai. As a matter of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">fact,
the minor child Adithya and respondent no. 6 could not be traced<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
their whereabouts could not be found for more than two years<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">since
the notice was issued by this Court. The respondent no. 6 and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
child has been moving from one State to another. The parents of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no. 6 have filed an affidavit before this Court denying any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">knowledge
or awareness of the whereabouts of respondent no. 6 and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
child Adithya ever since they left in September, 2007. In these<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">circumstances,
there has been no occasion for the child developing<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">roots
in this country. Moreover, the present habeas corpus petition<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">has
been filed by the petitioner promptly and without any delay, but<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">since
the respondent no. 6 has been moving from one State to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">another
and her whereabouts were not known, the notice could not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">be
served and child could not be produced for more than two years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23.
In a case such as the present one, we are satisfied that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">return
of minor Adithya to United States of America, for the time<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">being,
from where he has been removed and brought here would be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">33<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
the best interest of the child and also such order is justified in view<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the assurances given by the petitioner that he would bear all the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">traveling
expenses and make living arrangements for respondent no.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6 in
the United Sates of America till the necessary orders are passed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">by
the competent court; that the petitioner would comply with the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">custody/parenting
rights as per consent order dated June 18, 2007 till<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">such
time as the competent court in United States of America takes a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">further
decision; that the petitioner will request that the warrants<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">against
respondent no. 6 be dropped; that the petitioner will not file or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">pursue
any criminal charges for violation by respondent no. 6 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consent
order in the United States of America and that if any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">application
is filed by respondent no. 6 in the competent court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America, the petitioner shall cooperate in expeditious<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">hearing
of such application. The petitioner has also stated that he has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">obtained
confirmation from Martha Hunt Elementary School, Murphy,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Texas,
75094, that minor son Adithya will be admitted to school<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">forthwith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24.
The learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 6 sought<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
raise an objection regarding the maintainability of habeas corpus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court but we<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">34<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">are
not persuaded to accept the same. Suffice it to say that in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case which have already<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">been
noticed above and the order that we intend to pass, invocation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 cannot be said to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">inappropriate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25.
We record our appreciation for the work done by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerned
officers/officials of CBI in tracing the minor child Adithya<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
producing him in less than two months of the order passed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">this
Court, although, the Police Officers and Officials of different<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
failed in tracing the child Adithya and respondent no. 6 for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">more
than two years. But for the earnest efforts on the part of the CBI<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">authorities,
it would not have been possible for this Court to hear and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">decide
this habeas corpus petition involving the sensitive issue<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerning
a child of seven years who is a foreign national.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26.
In the result and for the reasons stated, we pass the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">following
order :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(i)
The respondent no. 6 shall act as per the consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
dated June 18, 2007 passed by the Family Court of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">State
of New York till such time any further order is passed on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">35<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
petition that may be moved by the parties henceforth and,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">accordingly,
she will take the child Adithya of her own to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America within fifteen days from today and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">report
to that court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ii)
The petitioner shall bear all the traveling expenses<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the respondent no. 6 and minor child Adithya and make<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">arrangements
for the residence of respondent no. 6 in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America till further orders are passed by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">competent
court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iii)
The petitioner shall request the authorities that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">warrants
against respondent no. 6 be dropped. He shall not file<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">or
pursue any criminal charges for violation by respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the consent order in the United States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iv)
The respondent no. 6 shall furnish her address and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">contact
number in India to the CBI authorities and also inform<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">them
in advance the date and flight details of her departure<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">along
with child Adithya for United States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(v)
In the event of respondent no. 6 not taking the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
of her own to United States of America within fifteen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">days
from today, child Adithya with his passport shall be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">36<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> restored to the custody of the petitioner to
be taken to United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America. The child will be a ward of the concerned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
that passed the consent order dated June 18, 2007. It will<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">be
open to respondent no. 6 to move that court for a review of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
custody of the child, if so advised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(vi)
The parties shall bear their own costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">..................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">......J
(Tarun Chatterjee)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">...................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">.....J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(R.
M. Lodha)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">........................J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Dr.
B.S. Chauhan)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">New
Delhi<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">November
17, 2009<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-62403803149976663232013-01-10T22:28:00.002-08:002013-01-10T22:28:23.904-08:00interim custody of child<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">“</span><span style="color: red; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In this view of the matter, the trial Court has clearly acted in
improper exercise of its jurisdiction in granting interim custody of the minor
child to the respondent for a period of 10 days from 15th May, 1998 to 25th
May, 1998 and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set
aside”</span><b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13pt;">Smt. Naseema Shaikh vs Shri Jainuddin M. Shaikh on 22 May, 1998<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Equivalent citations: 1998 (4) BomCR 225<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Author: R Khandeparkar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; margin-bottom: 3.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Bench: R Khandeparkar<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">ORDER<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">R.M.S.
Khandeparkar, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">1. Admit.
Heard forthwith by consent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">2. This
is a revision application against the Order dated 14th May, 1998 passed in
Special Civil Suit No. 55/96/B by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division
at Vasco-da-Gama. By the impugned order, the trial Court had directed that
during the first half of the summer vacation with effect from 15th May, 1998 to
25th May, 1998 the interim custody of the minor child of the parties by name
Saniya, be given to the respondent herein.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">3. The
facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioner and the
respondent were married on 10th May 1985 and out ot the said wedlock the said
child by name Saniya was born on 14th December 1987. The petitioner and the
respondent lived together till November 1993 and since December 1993 the
petitioner herein started residing at her parental house alongwith her daughter
Saniya. Sometime in July 1996 the respondent herein filed Special Civil Suit
No. 55/96/B in the trial Court praying for custody of the minor child Saniya.
Pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, the respondent herein also prayed
for interim custody of the child. It was the case of the respondent that the
petitioner had been leading an adulterous and characterless life and the same
may affect their daughter Saniya if she is allowed to continue to reside with
the petitioner. It was the further case of the respondent that the child was
being brought up by the petitioner in an unhealthy atmosphere and further that
the child was being deprived of motherly love and affection and, therefore, the
respondent wanted to bring up the child in a healthier manner and for that
reason the interim custody of the child was required to be given to him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">4. The
claim of the respondent was disputed by the petitioner and it was contended by
her that the respondent was an alcoholic person and used to ill-treat her and
that therefore she had to leave her matrimonial house. She further denied that
the child was being brought up in an unhealthy atmosphere and that no motherly
love and affection was given to the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">5. The
trial Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 15th February 1997
dismissed the interim application for custody filed by the respondent. The
trial Court however, observed that the respondent being the father of the minor
child was equally entitled to spend time with his minor daughter and to bestow
his love and affection on her and, therefore, it was just and proper to allow
the respondent to meet the child Saniya in the school premises during the
recess time of 1st and 4th Saturdays of every month.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">6. It
appears that prior to the Diwali vacation of the year 1997 an attempt was made
by the respondent to file an application for interim custody of the minor child
during the period of half of the Diwali Vacation. However, the same application
was rendered infructuous being not disposed of in time. Thereafter, on 21st
March 1998 the respondent herein filed another application seeking the relief
of interim custody of the minor child Saniya for half of the period of summer
vacation in the year 1998. The trial Court after hearing the parties by the
impugned order allowed the said application directing interim custody of the
minor child Saniya to be given to the respondent during the period from 15th
May 1998 to 25th May 1998. It is this order that is being impugned in the present
revision application.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">7. Shri
S.S. Kantak, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the
impugned order, submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered that
the application under consideration was barred by the principles of res
judicata in as much as the trial Court had, by its Order dated 15th February,
1997, already rejected the relief of interim custody ot the minor child to the
respondent and, therefore, the trial Court should not have entertained a fresh
application for similar type of relief. In that regard he placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1608703/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Arjun
Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others</span></a>, . He<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">further
submitted that the respondent did not disclose any change in the circumstances
to warrant any alteration or modification in the Order dated 15th February 1997
as regards the interim custody of the minor child Saniya. He further submitted
that the fact that there is de facto separation between the petitioner and the
respondent since December 1993 is not in dispute. Nevertheless there was no
attempt by the respondent to seek the custody of the minor child for a period
of 3 years and the application for custody was filed only in July 1996. An
attempt in the said suit to obtain interim custody on the part of the
respondent had failed when the Order dated 15th February 1997 was passed and
yet the respondent did not react against the same by filing any appeal. In
these circumstances, according to the learned Advocate, there was no
justification for any modification in the said Order on the basis of the
application filed by the respondent on 21st March 1998. According to the
learned advocate, the facts on record do not in any manner justify the custody
of the minor child with the respondent even for a period of 10 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">8. As
against this Shri S.M. Makandar, the learned Advocate appearing for the
respondent, submitted that the earlier application which was disposed of by
Order dated 15th February 1997 was on the basis of certain facts disclosed in
the application which was the subject matter of the Order whereas the impugned
Order is based on different set of facts disclosed in the application dated
21st March 1998 and in that view the principle of res judicata will have no
application to the matter in hand. According to the learned advocate, the fact
regarding the summer vacation was not at all an issue between the parties while
the matter was being dealt with by the trial Court and disposed of by Order
dated 15th February 1997 whereas that was the sole issue for consideration
while disposing the application under consideration by the impugned Order. He
further submitted that this Court in the matter of Agnelo Rasquinha v. Maria
Cynthia Luiza de Piedae Colaco Rasquinha, reported in 1989 (1) G.L.T. 28 has
already held that though the courts are at liberty to interview children, the
Court is not bound to follow the wishes of the children if it is found that the
children are immature and incapable of forming their opinion. Placing reliance
upon the said judgment of this Court, the learned Advocate submitted that
undisputedly the child Saniya is hardly 10 years old and cannot be considered
to be capable to form her own opinion regarding her own welfare and well being.
He further submitted that the father is always the natural guardian of minor
children. Being so, and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in the matter of Dr. Mrs. Manglesh Aneja v. State and another, reported
in 1988(24) Reports Del. 345 submitted that the welfare of the minor child
should be of paramount consideration for the Court while deciding the issue of
custody of the minor child and for that purpose all the relevant facts having
bearing on the health, maintenance and education of the minor should be taken
into consideration by the Court. Taking this into consideration, according to
the learned Advocate, no fault can be found with the impugned order and it
cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the trial Court in
ordering the interim custody of the minor child Saniya for 10 days to the
respondent. He further submitted that it is in the interest of the child that
the child should also be bestowed with fatherly love alongwith motherly love
and in that view of the matter no interference is called for by this Court in
its revisional jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">9. Upon
hearing the advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen
that the trial Court by the impugned order has allowed the application of the
respondent for interim custody for 10 days during the summer vacation merely on
the ground that the question of summer vacation raised in the application under
consideration was not before the trial Court while deciding the matter on 15th
February 1997 and secondly on the ground that the predecessor Judge of the
trial Court had found that the father of the minor child Saniya, being a
natural guardian, could not be deprived to spend some time with his own
daughter and to bestow his love and affection on her. The relevant portion of
the Order reads thus :-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"Perusal
of the application in the said Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 128/ 96 and
the affidavit filed in support of it shows that the question of summer vacation
was not raised in the said application nor the same was considered in the said
order. The petitioner being the father of the minor-child-Saniya is a natural
guardian of the said child, he cannot be deprived to spend some time with his
own daughter and to bestow his love and affection on her. The application of
the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be allowed to the following
effects."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Before
arriving at the said finding the trial Court has also quoted a paragraph from
the order dated 15th February 1997 in order to justify the said findings.
Moreover, it appears that the trial Court completely overlooked that the
paragraph quoted from the order dated 15th February 1997 was preceded by two
other relevant paragraphs which read thus :-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">"
10. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent is living with her
parents, sisters and brothers. Thus, it is evident that even in the absence of
the respondent there are elderly family members in the house who can look after
the child. The applicant is admittedly working and there is nothing on record to
prove that he has any family member specially grown up female family member who
is genuinely interested in the welfare of the child and who can guide and give
motherly advice to the child Saniya.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">11. In my
opinion, the differences, discord and bitterness between the parents should not
affect the healthy normal growth of the child the least that the child deserves
and expects from their parents."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">It is
only after arriving at these findings that the trial Court in its Order dated
15th February 1997 had observed that considering all these facts and without
going into the merits of the allegations made by either parties, there were no
compelling circum stances warranting interference of the Court to grant interim
custody to the respondent. Nevertheless the trial Court had also observed that
the respondent being father of the minor child was equally entitled to spend
time with his minor child and to bestow his love and affection on his daughter.
In other words, the observation of the trial Court in its order dated 15th
February 1997 regarding the necessity or entitlement of the father to spend
some time with his minor daughter was in the facts and circumstances disclosed
in paragraph 10 and 11 of the said order which clearly disclose that the
materials on record do not suggest in any manner that there were any compelling
circumstances warranting interference of the Court to grant interim custody to
the respondent. At this stage it is pertinent to note that absolutely nothing
has been brought on record by the respondent to show that there has been any
change in the said situation after passing the Order dated 15-2-97. In other
words, the facts that the respondent is not having any elderly person to look
after the child in his absence when he goes to attend his job and that no
compelling circumstances warranting interim custody of the child Saniya for 10
days with the respondent has been disclosed by the respondent at this stage are
not in dispute and therefore there is no change in the said situation which was
prevailing as on 15-2-97. The impugned order did not refer to any such material
having been brought on record and rightly so, because there is no such
materials placed on record.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">10. The
observation of the trial Court that "question of summer vacation was not
raised in the said application nor the same was considered in the said
order" clearly shows non-application of mind of the trial Court to the
matter in issue. Summer vacation is not a new thing which occurred only in
March, 1998. Every educational year is followed by summer vacation. In that
view of the matter it cannot be said that the respondent was unaware of the
fact that his minor daughter Saniya would be enjoying summer vacation in the
year 1998 after answering her examination of Standard VI having started in the
said Standard in the academic year 1997-1998. The respondent cannot be said to
have been unaware of this fact at the time the matter was heard and decided by
Order dated 15-2-97. Though the principle of res judicata may not be strictly
applicable here, nevertheless the principle incorporated in Explanation IV of
section 11 cannot be completely overlooked. Considering this fact the
observation of the trial Court that the question of summer vacation was not
raised in the earlier application and was not considered by the trial Court
while passing the order dated 15th February 1997 not only discloses
non-application of the mind to the matter in issue and the law applicable
thereto but clearly discloses improper exercise of its jurisdiction while disposing
of the application.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">11.
Moreover the matter pertains to the custody of the minor child and cannot be
disposed of merely because there was a jurisdictional error on the part of the
trial Court and the matter requires to be considered on the merits of the case.
The trial Court while disposing the earlier application for interim custody has
clearly observed as already held above that there is no elderly female member
available in the family of the respondent to look after the minor child in the
absence of the respondent when he goes to attend his job. The trial Court also
observed that for the healthy growth of the minor child the differences between
the parents should not be taken into consideration and no fault can be found
with such observation of the trial Court. As already observed above the
respondent has not brought on record any material to show or to justify any
change in the circumstance at the residence of the respondent or that any
member of the family is available to look after the child in his absence at his
residence since 15-2-97 or any time thereafter. The trial Court in its Order
dated 15th February 1997 after taking into consideration all the pros and cons
had decided to reject the interim custody of the child to the respondent. There
was no reaction by the respondent against the said order. In these
circumstances it cannot be said even on merits that there is any case made out
by the respondent for any modification or change in the Order dated 15th
February 1997 and to permit the custody of the minor child even for 10 days to
the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">12. The
decision of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the learned Advocate for the
respondent lays down broad principles of law to be followed while deciding the
matter relating to the custody of the minor child. Moreover, the judgment is
clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case the Delhi High Court has
clearly observed that the father is a natural guardian of the children and the
burden of proving that he is incapable of looking after the welfare of the
children was on the petitioner mother particularly when the children are not in
a position to make an intelligent preference. Undisputedly in the instant case
the trial Court in its Order dated 15th February 1997 has dearly held that in
the facts and circumstances the respondent will not be in a position to look
after the minor child Saniya and, therefore, the interim custody of minor child
Saniya to the respondent was rejected. That observation remains undisturbed.
The respondent never even thought of challenging that decision of the trial
Court in its Order dated 15-2-97. In this background the judgment of the Delhi
High Court has no application to the case in hand.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">13. As
regards the decision of our High Court in the matter of Agnelo Rasquinha
(supra), there is absolutely no difficulty in placing reliance upon the same,
not to justify the impugned order but to justify the interference therein by
the High Court. This Court has held in the said decision of Agnelo Rasquinha
(supra) that though the Court is at liberty to interview children, the Court is
not bound to follow the wishes of the children, if it is found that the
children are immature and incapable of forming their opinion. This proposition
only speaks about the discretion of the Court to be exercised in the matter of
custody of the minor child. In fact, I have personally interviewed the minor
child in the presence of both the parents after hearing the arguments by the
Counsel for both the parties. After thorough interview with her, I found that
she fares comfortably well in her studies and has secured second rank. Besides,
she has sufficient interest in extracurricular activities and games. She has
already completed 10 years of age. Though she is immature and incapable to form
her own opinion, from whatever that was disclosed by her in the course of the
interview, I do not see any justification for confirming the order of interim
custody of 10 days in favour of the respondent or for any such interim custody
of the minor child Saniya with the respondent pending the final disposal of the
suit. Moreover, my decision is not based on merely what has transpired from the
interview but is based on entire materials on record. Certainly what has been
disclosed by the child in the course of the interview cannot be discarded as
totally irrelevant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">14. The
decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the
petitioner in the matter of Arjun Singh (supra) is of relevancy to the matter
in issue. In the said case the Apex Court has held that the scope of principle
of res judicata is not confined to what is contained in section 11 but is of
more general application. Again the principle of res judicata could be as very
much applicable to different stages of the same suit. It has further held that
where the principle of res judicata is invoked in the case of the different
stages of proceedings in the same suit, the nature of the proceedings, the
scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision being
reached, as well as the specific provisions made on matters touching such
decision are some of the material and relevant factors to be considered before
the principle is held applicable. In the instant case the issue before the
trial Court while deciding the matter on 15th February 1997 was pertaining to
interim custody of the minor child Saniya. The issue before the trial Court
while deciding the application under consideration by the impugned order was
not different from the interim custody of the minor child. Only difference was
that while deciding the matter on 15th February 1997 the Court was concerned
about the interim custody of the minor child during the entire pendency of the
suit whereas while deciding the application by the impugned order, the Court
was concerned with half the period of the summer vacation of 1998. Once the
trial Court had considered all the pros and cons and had arrived at the finding
that it was not in the interest of the child to grant the interim custody to
the respondent during the pendency of the suit, question of granting interim
custody during the summer vacation of 1998 could not have been reconsidered by
the trial Court unless the respondent had reacted in a lawful manner against
the finding arrived at by the trial Court in its Order dated 15-2-97 or the
respondent had been able to bring on record the change in the circumstances
from those were prevailing on 15-2-97, warranting disturbance in the custody of
the minor child Saniya.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">15. In
this view of the matter, the trial Court has clearly acted in improper exercise
of its jurisdiction in granting interim custody of the minor child to the
respondent for a period of 10 days from 15th May, 1998 to 25th May, 1998 and,
therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">16. In
the result, therefore, the revision application succeeds and the impugned order
is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">17.
Application succeed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p>Sourcess:http://www.indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1899229/?formInput=interim%20custody%20of%20child</o:p></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-8714517049524423282013-01-10T22:23:00.001-08:002013-01-10T22:23:47.387-08:00custody of child given to mother<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Custody of
child given to mother<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">“On a careful
consideration of respective contentions, this Court is of the considered view
that 'the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated
20.01.2009 directing the revision petitioner/wife to hand over the minor child
Shreya to the respondent/husband (father) on the first and third Sunday of
every month at 9.00 a.m. at a common place agreed to by both parties and that
the respondent/husband is directed to hand over the child to the revision
petitioner/wife on the same day at 4.00 p.m. so that it will have an influence
on the mental faculty of the minor child to develop for being a grown-up
personality in the near future' is a valid one and the same does not suffer
from any mistake much less an error on the face of record and the same is not
an erroneous one and further this Court opines that the petitioner/husband is
not entitled to file the present review application as an appeal in disguise
and viewed in that perspective, rehearing of the matter is not permissible
under the guise of review and resultantly, the Review Application is dismissed
to prevent an aberration of justice. It is open to the petitioner/husband to
seek remedy before the learned First Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai
(where the O.P.No.3556 of 2007 is pending) by establishing the proof of change
of circumstances if any in regard to the custody/ visitation rights of the
child Shreya (if the welfare of the ward requires variation since there is no
aspect of an estoppel in such a case) in the manner known to law if so advised.</span>”<span style="color: red; font-family: "Georgia","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE
M.VENUGOPAL<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Review
Application No.51 of 2009<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">R.Swaminathan
... petitioner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Vs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Sivagowri
... Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Review
Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w.114
of C.P.C., reviewing the order passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated
20.1.2009.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">For
petitioner : Mr.I.Subramanian, S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">For
M/s.Uma Vijayakumar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">For
respondent : Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDER<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
petitioner/respondent/husband has filed this Review Application praying this
court to review its order dated 20.01.2009 made in CRP.(PD).No.4091 of 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2.Earlier,
the respondent/petitioner/wife has filed C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 before this
Court as against the order dated 14.11.2008 in I.A.No.1420 of 2008 in O.P.
No.3556 of 2007 passed by the learned First Additional Judge, Family Court,
Chennai in directing the respondent/ wife to hand over the child to the
petitioner/respondent/ husband on every Sunday at 9.00 a.m. at a common place
agreed to by both and the petitioner/husband has been directed to hand over the
child to the respondent/wife on the same day at 5.00 p.m. at the same place
etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3.This
court on 20.01.2009 in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 has passed the following
order:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;One
cannot ignore an important fact that a proceeding in regard to the grant of
interim custody of a minor child is a proceeding indeed for the welfare of a
child and not a litigation between the parties, in the considered opinion of
this Court and viewed in this perspective, a direction issued by the trial
Court ordering the revision petitioner/ wife to hand over the child to the
respondent/husband on every Sunday at 9.00 a.m. at a common place agreed to by
both and that the respondent/husband is directed to hand over the child to the
revision petitioner/wife on the same day at 5.00 p.m. at the same place etc.,
is not for the welfare of the child. However, the visiting right of the
respondent/husband (as a father of the child being an interested person) cannot
be totally curtailed and therefore, this Court, looking into the facts and
appreciating the social conditions and other natural conditions and on overall
assessment of the cumulative circumstances of the case and considering the
interest of the welfare of the child, in modification of the order passed by
the trial Court as an equitable remedy, directs the revision petitioner/wife to
hand over the minor child Shreya to the respondent/husband (father) on the
first and third Sunday of every month at 9.00 a.m. at a common place agreed to
by both parties and that the respondent/husband is directed to hand over the child
to the revision petitioner/ wife on the same day at 4.00 p.m. so that it will
have an influence on the mental faculty of the minor child to develop for being
a grown-up personality in the near future.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4.In
the grounds of review, the petitioner/husband has averred that this Court has
erred in modifying the order of the Family Court passed in I.A.No.1420 of 2008
much detriment of the petitioner/review applicant's right to visit his
daughter/child for one day in a week and that the petitioner suffered both
physical and mental torture at the hands of respondent/wife since the marriage
has been a turbulent one and the torture so inflicted on the petitioner by the
respondent/wife has been to such an extent that it traumatised the child a
great deal and further that he is keen that the child must be brought up in a
peaceful, serene and calm environment and the daughter has developed a parental
alienation syndrome and the previous school in which she has been studying has
advised the petitioner/father to take the child for a professional counseling
and moreover, the petitioner's belongings such as certificates, laptop etc. are
all in respondent/wife's custody and she has refused to give it back to the
petitioner and that the child has been shifted from Vidyodaya Matriculation
Academy without consulting the petitioner/husband and that the
petitioner/husband has been forced to pay the donation of Rs.65,000/- for
admission in the Chettinad Vidyashram School and also that the respondent/wife
in order to have total control over the child has got a job as a Teacher in the
same school and that the petitioner/husband is neither allowed to meet the
child nor the school authorities to enquire about the child's progress and well
being and as a matter of fact, the correspondent of Vidyodaya Schools Society
(the previous school where the child has been studying) has now given the
petitioner a letter dated 09.2.2009 which has not been available when the order
has been passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009 and the order of
the Family Court dated 14.11.2008 in I.A.No.1420 of 2008 in O.P.No.3556 of 2007
satisfied the parties who have been benefited by the same and this Court has
declined to set aside the order of the Family Court in toto while passing
orders in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 but reduce the number of times the
petitioner/father can visit his daughter and the contents of the letter dated
09.02.2009 given by the Vidyodaya Schools Society may warrant review of the
order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009 and
restore the visitation rights of the petitioner/husband as initially granted by
the Family Court etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5.The
further pleas of the petitioner/husband are that the letter dated 09.2.2009 of
the Headmistress of Vidyodaya Schools Society that the petitioner/husband has
visited the school only during lunch break and that too only on the insistence
of the Teacher and not as stated by the respondent/wife in her affidavit and
indeed the parents have equal rights to the child/daughter and neither parties
rights are superior to that of the other and that the plight of the petitioner
has been deprived of the company of his precious daughter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6.According
to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in matrimonial
proceedings are interlocutory orders and not the final orders and even in
compromise orders a modification order can be filed and as far as the
petitioner/husband is concerned, he is not interested in initiating the
contempt proceedings against the respondent/wife and as per Section 6 of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father viz., the petitioner is the
natural guardian of the Hindu minor and that the statute mandates that the
father is the natural guardian and in the present case before us, the child/
daughter is 8 years and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner/father
is disqualified and when the respondent/wife has floated the orders passed by
this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009, she cannot avail the
benefit of the said order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7.In
support of the contention that custody orders passed by the Court in
matrimonial proceedings are an interlocutory one, the learned counsel for the
petitioner cites the decision in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64918/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">B.Suresh
Babu V. Nithya</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2009
(1) CTC 402 wherein this Court has held that 'revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution could be maintainable only if there is no alternative remedy
available to prevent abuse of process of Court and to meet ends of justice
under the supervisory power of the High Court and further it is the settled
proposition of law that in case of custody of minor child, welfare of child is
paramount and even orders passed on compromise has to be treated as an
Interlocutory Order subject to modification and that the revision
petitioner/father of the child is entitled to place all his defence to
substantiate his visiting right as per compromise decree and Court below is
empowered to decide the same on merits and that the respondent has to establish
alleged change of circumstance warranting filing of an application and justify
the relief sought for and taht the Court is not an functus officio.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8.He
also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/135809/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Jai
Prkash Khadria V. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>another in (2000) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 598 at page 599 wherein it is held that 'orders relating to custody of
children are by their very nature not final but are interlocutory in nature and
subject to modification at any future time upon proof of change of
circumstances requiring change of custody but such change in custody must be
proved to be in the paramount interest of the child.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9.The
learned counsel for the petitioner/husband brings it to the notice of this Court
in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nil Ratan Kundu and another V.
Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia
observed that 'in regard to the issues pertaining to the custody of minor the
same should be handled with love, affection, sentiments and applying human
touch to the problem.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.It
is to be borne in mind that as a general rule, the Court will appoint the
father as a guardian of the minor and will not deprive him of the custody of
minor if it is satisfied that having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, the father must have the custody of the minor. In all such cases, the
vital consideration in appointing the guardian ought to be the welfare of the
minor child and the Court may not give custody of the minor to the father. In
the decision Mohini V. Veerendrakumar AIR 1977 S.C., it is held that 'the
mother is entitled to guardianship and custody of minor son 11 years old.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11.When
the father is alive, he is the natural guardian and it is only after him the
mother becomes the natural guardian. However, there can be an exceptional case
where the minor can be legally represented by the mother as the natural
guardian, even though the father may be alive. Where the father of the minor
has been alive, but the father and mother has fallen down and the mother with
whom the minor has been living and has been managing the affairs of the minor
daughter for over 20 years it is held that a lease executed by the mother on
behalf of the minor has been valid and binding on the minor, the mother being
recorded as a natural guardian of the minor in the particular circumstances as
per decision<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1377832/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Jijabai
Vithalrao Gajre V. Pathankhan AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>1971
SC 315.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12.The
learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that he is not seeking a
review of the order passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009 but
prays for an issuance of an order to modify the order passed in
C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13.In
response, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the review
application is not maintainable before this Court since there is no error
apparent on the face of record in the order passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of
2008 dated 20.01.2009 and the review jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy in
limited cases and that is not similar to an appeal and under the guise of
review, the petitioner ought not to be permitted to re-agitate the pleas and in
fact, the petitioner has not made out a case that the order passed by this
Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009 suffers from an error
apparent on the face of record and as such, the review application is liable to
be dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14.In
support of the contention that rehearing the matter for deducting an error in
the earlier decision and then correcting the same do not fall within the
purview of review jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the respondent /wife
cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1922473/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Parsion
Devi and others V. Sumitri Devi and others</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1997) 8 SCC 715 at page 716 wherein
it is inter alia observed as follows: &quot;Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a
judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has
to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power
of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
&quot;reheard and corrected&quot;. There is a clear distinction between
an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While
the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be
corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be &quot;an appeal in
disguise&quot;.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15.Also
reliance is placed on the decision in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/317498/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Meera
Bhanja V. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1995)
1 SCC 170 wherein it is laid down that 'review must be confined to error
apparent on the face of the record and error must be such as would be apparent
on mere looking of the record without requiring any long-drawn process of
reasoning and reappraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the
error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is permissible
etc.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16.In
the additional affidavit of the petitioner/ husband it is among other things
mentioned that 'for 8 months he has been denied access to his daughter and
finally the Family Court in I.A.No.1420 of 2007 granted him two hours
visitation rights of Thursdays and after his daughter's school reopened this
has been reduced to one hour a week on the request of the respondent/wife
before the Court and the Family Court passed final orders in I.A.No.1420 of
2007 on 14.11.2008 granting him visitation rights on all Sundays from 9.00 a.m.
to 5.00 p.m. and when this has been challenged in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008
orders have been passed reducing the visitation rights to the first and third
Sundays in a month and pending adjudication of the review application, a changed
circumstance has occurred and on 04.06.2009 Mr.Dilip, the junior of his wife's
counsel called and told him to pay the child's school fees and when the
authorities of the school wanted him to furnish the roll number of the child
which he is not aware and the authorities after verifying the records has come
back and informed him that he cannot pay the fees as they have been instructed
by his wife not to entertain him at any cost or to give any access to the child
or information about her progress in the school and the school authorities
refuse to allow him to pay the fees and asked him to leave the school premises
and he has an equal right to the welfare of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17.In
the counter filed (in the review application) by the respondent/wife, it is
among other things stated that it is the husband who volunteered to pay school
fees and donation to Chettinad Vidyashram School before the Family Court Judge
and he enjoyed visitation rights on Thursdays in the child care centre at the
Family Court premises and there is no need for him to visit the child in the
school and disturb her in the presence of her other classmates and schoolmates
and she has obeyed the orders of the Family Court and this Court except on two
occasions, when her daughter has been sick and when her family has gone on a
pilgrimage and even on such occasions, she informed the husband duly through
the Family Court counsellor Ms.Lalitha, in whose house the child is generally
handed over during visitation hours and in fact, on her instruction, her counsel's
junior has requested the husband to pay the school fees as he has already
volunteered to pay for it in the Family Court and that he has not paid the fees
and therefore, she has paid the same and when the child is in her custody and
the husband has only visitation rights on alternative Sundays, disturbing the
child at any other time violates the rights of the child and that of her to
live in peace and harmony and the review petitioner/ husband has no new
circumstances to substantiate his claim for review and has been engaging in
vexatious litigation purely to harass her and her family.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18.In
the decision of this Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1961684/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">K.Jagannathan
V. A.M.Vasudevan Chettiar and others</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(2001) 1 M.L.J. 614 it is held that
'Admittedly the mother has not alienated the property of the minor. Under the
document joint family properties were divided and the minor was represented by
his mother as guardian. Though father is a natural guardian as per Sec.6, it
was the father who permitted the mother to act as the guardian of the minor and
he did not raise any objection.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19.It
is not out of place to point out that as per Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, the Court, pending the matrimonial proceedings from time to time, may pass
orders as to the interim custody of the minor child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20.This
Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of 2008 dated 20.01.2009 by directing the revision
petitioner/wife to hand over the child Shreya to the respondent/husband (review
petitioner/father) on the first and third Sunday of every month at 9.00 a.m. at
a common place agreed to by both parties and that the respondent/husband is
directed to hand over the child to the revision petitioner/wife on the same day
at 4.00 p.m. etc. has not denied a complete access to the review
petitioner/husband.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21.The
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 constitute an exception to the general
rule to the effect that once a judgment is signed and delivered it cannot
afterwards be altered. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for a patent error
as per decision in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/639997/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Saravana
Pillai V. A.S.Mariappan</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2003
1 MLJ 693. Indeed, the ambit of review is for review of 'error apparent' only
and not to review the judgment/order, even if the parties are placed in a
situation to satisfy the Court that the order under review is an erroneous one
as per decision<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/28246/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Ahmedabad
Electricity Company Limited V. State of Gujarat AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2003 Guj 157 (159) D.B. The aim is not
to enable a Judge to write a second judgment because the first one was wrong as
per decision in Krishnan V. Narayanan AIR 1951 Madras at page 660.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22.Even
if a decision or an order is erroneous in law or on merits it cannot be
accepted that it is an error apparent on the face of the record. Where there
are two possible views regarding the interpretation or application of law
vis-a-vis the particular facts of a case, taking one view, even if it is
erroneous cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
There exist a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error can be said to be apparent on the
face of record only when such an error is patent and can be found out without
any detail argument without any scope for any controversy in regard to such
error, which as if at a glance stares at the face. But if there is no error
apparent on the face of record review petition is not maintainable as per
decision Kailash Talkies V. State of Rajesthan 1998 AIHC 2401. Moreover, if a
view adopted by the Court in the original order is a possible view, it cannot
be an error apparent on the face of record even though another view is also
possible as per decision<a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/173865/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">C.N.Ramachandra V. State AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>1997 Kant 181, 183. In short, a review
cannot repair the verdict once given if it is not an error on the face of it as
per decision in Sabad Ch Deka V. Naomai Deka AIR 1985 NOC 19 (Gau).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23.A
review petition has to be entertained only on the face of the error apparent on
the face of record but not on any other reason in the considered opinion of
this Court. The limitation of the power of a Court of law under Order 47 Rule 1
C.P.C. is akin to the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking
review of the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution as per decision<a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/317498/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Meera
Bhanja V. Nirmal Kumar Choudhury</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1995)
1 SCC at page 170. Mere possibility of two views is not a ground for review,
the review Court cannot said as an Appellate Court therefore, reassessing the
evidence and pointing out the defects in the order of the Court is not proper
as per decision<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/160343/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Santhosh
Kumar V. Nageshwar Prasad AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2001
All 187. Admittedly, the power of review the hedged in by the restrictions
specified in Order 47 it can be exercised on the application of an individual
on the discovery of new matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence has not been within its knowledge or could not be produced by him at
the time when the order has been made. Suffice it for this Court to point out
that a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or an
argument, or a correction on an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say,
the power of review can be exercised only for the correction of a patent error
of law or fact which stares in the face without any detail arguments being
required for establishing the same. The expression 'any other sufficient
reason' employed in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to
those mentioned in the rule.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24.Mere
discovery of vital new matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for a
review. A party seeking review has also to establish that such additional
material has not been within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due
diligence could not be produced any Court earlier. An error contemplated under
Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. must be such which is an apparent on the face of record
and not an error which has to be fished out and searched in the considered
opinion of this Court A reappraisal of the evidence on record for finding out
the error will amount to an exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not
permissible by the constitute.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25.The
learned counsel for the respondent/wife cites the decision in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/436323/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Mohan
Lal Bagla V. Board of Revenue AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2005
All 308 wherein it is held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;To
argue same details as a question of fact in second inning of the matter cannot
be permitted. It is under very exceptional circumstances where it can be
demonstrated that on the finding and reasoning so given, there is error
apparent on the face of record which can be termed to be mistake within the
meaning of error apparent as that can be discovered without any argument, it
may be filed by a new advocate but that too after obtaining no objection from
earlier counsel. If a case is to be argued on the same set of facts by change
of counsel, at several occasions, it may be possible that with imminence of the
counsel, a new dimension to the augment may come on same set of facts. Skill in
the argument and advocacy is to vary always from counsel to counsel. Although
earlier two senior advocates of this Court namely Sri R.N. Singh and Sri V.B.
Upadhyaya argued the matters on behalf of applicant at length with full
vehemence at their command but now Sri V.B. Singh, learned senior advocate
wants to argue the matter in his own way by placing the same record and same
pleadings. On the facts of present case, this Court is of the view that filing
of review petition on the ground so taken in the application cannot be said to
be just and proper so as to entitle Sri Saran, learned advocate and Sri Singh,
learned senior advocate to file and argue this review petition. It is thus
established that change of counsel during review proceedings is a deprecated
practice that is actively discouraged by the Courts. Such practice acts as a
backdoor to abuse of review proceedings. With changed counsel, pleas are
re-agitated as though in appeal, thereby obliterating the distinct differences
in the nature of appellate and review proceedings. The present case suffers
from the same malady where the Petitioner is attempting to disguise his appeal
in the cloak of review proceedings complete with change of counsel.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26.The
learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the Correspondent of
Vidyodaya Schools Society, Chennai-600 017 in her letter dated 09.02.2009
addressed to the petitioner herein inter alia stating that the petitioner has
come to Vidyodaya School only during lunch time at the insistence of her
teacher who felt that she has been missing you and her impression that Shreya
has been happy and relieved to see him and enjoyed the treats that you have
brought and further the students of Standard I being only 5 years old neither
understood nor commented on any family problem and it is her impression that
Shreya enjoyed being a student of Vidyodaya Matriculation Academy and access to
her has always only with the permission of the school authorities and only
during the lunch interval and counselling for her has been recommended because
of her behaviour in class room etc. and as such, the averments of the
respondent/wife in her affidavit are false which in turn is a good ground for
this Court to reconsider its order passed in the main civil revision petition.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife contends that the letter
of the school Correspondent dated 09.02.2009 addressed to the
petitioner/husband cannot be relied upon as it is contrary to facts and the
same has been given solely to please him and further the Correspondent is not
competent or qualify to enter a judgment in regard to the mental state of the
child, apart from the fact that the said letter has been issued more than a
year after the child has been transferred from the said school. In effect, the
letter dated 09.02.2009 of the Correspondent of the Vidyodaya Schools Society
addressed to the petitioner/ husband is very much disputed on the side of the
respondent /wife. In this connection, it is apt for this Court to cite the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/333476/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Union of
India V. Paul Manickam AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2003
SC 4622, 4629 wherein it is held that 'the Court will not entertain a review
petition with an entirely new substratum of issues or where there is
suppression of facts.' In the decision Bahadur V. Bachai AIR 1963 All. 186 it
is observed that 'the High Court cannot set aside or recall its own decision on
a review application under Order 47 of C.P.C. but it can set right the wrong
committed by it in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The learned counsel
for the respondent/wife brings it to the notice of this Court that the Delhi
High Court in Krishna Bus Service (P) Ltd., V. Satvir Singh,
W.P.(C).No.3275/2001 (decided on 19.03.2008) has held as follows:
&quot;Discovery of new evidence or material by itself is not sufficient to
entitle a party for review of a judgment. A review is permissible on the ground
of discovery of new evidence only when such an evidence is relevant and of such
a character that if it had been produced earlier it might possibly have altered
the judgment, further, it must be established that the applicant had acted with
due diligence and that the existence of the evidence, which he has now
discovered, was not within his knowledge when the order was passed. If it is
found that the petitioner has not acted with the diligence then it is not open
to the Court to admit evidence on the ground of sufficient cause. The party
seeking a review should prove strictly the diligence he claims to have
exercised. In a review application a party cannot be allowed to introduced
fresh documents merely to supplement evidence which might possibly have had
some effect on the result.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">27.Added
further, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife relies on the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/336548/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board V. N.Raju Reddiar</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1997) 9 SCC 736 wherein it is held as
follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;....
except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no
review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared
nor was party in the main case. It is salutary that court spends valuable time
in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for
hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent
time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with
change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at
earlier stage. This is not conductive to healthy practice of the Bar which has
the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession.&quot;
Furthermore, in the aforesaid decision it is observed as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;Once
the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should
be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of
changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with
a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy
practice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000 as it is an abuse of
the process of Court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be
paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from
the date of judgment.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">28.The
utmost requirement under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is that the order of which
review is sought suffers from any error apparent on the face of order and
permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice as per decision
Rajendra Kumar V. Ram Bai AIR 2003 SC 2095 (2096). No wonder, the power of
review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enable the
appellate Court to correct all errors of Subordinate Court. A review means the
act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement and
that the same is also not an appeal in disguise as per decision<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1762508/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Lily
Thomas V. Union of India AIR</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2000
SC 1650 (1652). Also there cannot be a reappraisal of the entire evidence on
record for finding an error. It is needless to state that if there is
reappraisal, it will amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not
permissible. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife refers to the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1536859/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Thungabhadra
Industries Limited V. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>1965 (5) SCR 174 (186) wherein it is
held that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.' Another
decision of this Court in Hindustan Photo Films Company Limited and another V.
H.B. Vinobha and others AIR 1998 Madras 358 is relied on the side of the
respondent/wife wherein it is held as follows: &quot;the power of review
may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the
order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground,
It may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits
since that would be the province of Court of Appeal and the same cannot be a
ground for review. Where the very same objections were raised in review which
were earlier raised and considered on the fact of information furnished by both
sides while disposing of the writ petitions, the review applications would be
liable to be dismissed.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29.In
regard to the contention that the orders pertaining to custody of children are
interlocutory in nature and subject to modification at any future time based on
proof of change of circumstance and such change in custody ought to be
established in the paramount interest of the child, the learned counsel for the
petitioner refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/270778/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Rosy
Jacob V. Jacob A. Chakramakkal</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1973)
1 SCC 840.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">30.On
a careful consideration of respective contentions, this Court is of the
considered view that 'the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4091 of
2008 dated 20.01.2009 directing the revision petitioner/wife to hand over the
minor child Shreya to the respondent/husband (father) on the first and third
Sunday of every month at 9.00 a.m. at a common place agreed to by both parties
and that the respondent/husband is directed to hand over the child to the
revision petitioner/wife on the same day at 4.00 p.m. so that it will have an
influence on the mental faculty of the minor child to develop for being a
grown-up personality in the near future' is a valid one and the same does not
suffer from any mistake much less an error on the face of record and the same
is not an erroneous one and further this Court opines that the
petitioner/husband is not entitled to file the present review application as an
appeal in disguise and viewed in that perspective, rehearing of the matter is
not permissible under the guise of review and resultantly, the Review
Application is dismissed to prevent an aberration of justice. It is open to the
petitioner/husband to seek remedy before the learned First Additional Judge,
Family Court, Chennai (where the O.P.No.3556 of 2007 is pending) by
establishing the proof of change of circumstances if any in regard to the
custody/ visitation rights of the child Shreya (if the welfare of the ward
requires variation since there is no aspect of an estoppel in such a case) in
the manner known to law if so advised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">31.In
fine, the Review Application is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs. It is open to the petitioner/husband to seek remedy before the
learned First Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai (where the O.P.No.3556 of
2007 is pending) by establishing the proof of change of circumstances if any in
regard to the custody/ visitation rights of the child Shreya (if the welfare of
the ward requires variation since there is no aspect of an estoppel in such a
case) in the manner known to law if so advised. Considering the relationship of
the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. 3.08.2009<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Index
: Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Internet
: Yes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">sgl<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">To<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The I
Additional Judge,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Family
Court, Chennai.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">M.VENUGOPAL,
J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-52903409562095708482013-01-10T22:16:00.001-08:002013-01-10T22:16:57.296-08:00Child Visitation right of father <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Child
Visitation right to father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">“In the
application dated 9.5.2008 filed before the Additional District Judge, Delhi,
the mother made it clear in paragraph 12 that she is ready to furnish any
undertaking or bond in order to ensure her return to India and to make
available to the father, his visitation rights subject to the education of the
child. This Court finds that so far as the order which had been passed by the
High Court, affirming the order of the Trial Court, the visitation rights of
the appellant-father have been so structured as to be compatible with the
educational career of the child. This Court finds that in this matter judicial
discretion has been properly balanced between the rights of the appellant and
those of the respondent.</span>”<span style="color: red; font-family: "Georgia","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPEAL NO.2704 OF 2010<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Arising
out of SLP(C) No.19935/2009) Vikram Vir Vohra ..Appellant(s) Versus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Shalini
Bhalla ..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">GANGULY,
J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1.
Leave granted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2.
This appeal by the husband, impugns the judgment and order dated 27.07.09 of
Delhi High Court which upheld the judgment and order of the Additional District
Judge passed in relation to applications filed by both the parties under
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter &quot;the Act&quot;).
The impugned judgment 1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> permitted the respondent-wife to take the
child with her to Australia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3.
The material facts of the case are that the parties to the present appeal were
married as per the Hindu rites on 10.12.2000. A child, Master Shivam, was born
to them on 05.08.02. In view of irreconcilable differences between the parties
they had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act
and filed a petition to that effect and on 05.09.06 a decree of divorce on
mutual consent was passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4. As
regards the custody of the child there was some settlement between the parties
and according to the appellant the same was incorporated in paras 7 and 9 of
the petition filed under Section 13-B (2) of the Act. Those paragraphs are as
under:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
parties have agreed that the custody of the minor son Master Shivam shall
remain with the mother, petitioner No.1 who being the natural mother is also
the guardian of the son Master Shivam as per law laid down by the Supreme Court
of India. It is, however, agreed that the father petitioner shall have right of
2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> visitation only to the extent that the child
Master Shivam shall be with the father, petitioner No.2, once in a fortnight
from 10 AM to 6.30 PM on a Saturday. Petitioner No.2 shall collect the child
Master Shivam from WZ-64, 2nd Floor Shiv Nagar Lane No.4, New Delhi-58 at 10 AM
on a Saturday where the child is with his mother. And on the same day at by
6.30 PM, the petitioner No.2 would leave the child back at the same place with
the mother i.e. petitioner No.1 and in case he does not do so petitioner No.1
the mother shall collect the child from petitioner No.2 on the same day. Both
parties undertake before this Hon'ble Court that they would not create any
obstruction in implementation of this arrangement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
petitioner No.1 shall take adequate care of the child in respect of health,
education etc., at her own cost. In case the petitioner No.1 changes her
address or takes the child outside Delhi, she shall keep petitioner No.2
informed one week in advance about the address and telephone nos. and the place
where the child would be staying with the mother, to enable the petitioner No.2
to remain in touch with the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
petitioner No.1 has received all her Stridhan and other valuables, articles and
other possessions, and nothing remains due to her from the petitioner No.2. The
petitioner No.1 and the child Shivam has no claim to any property or financial
commitment from petitioner No.2 and all her claims are settled fully and
finally&quot;.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5.
Thereafter the respondent-wife filed applications dated 07.11.06 and 9.05.08
and the 3<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> appellant-husband also filed applications
dated 17.11.07 and 16.02.09 under Section 26 of the Act seeking modification of
those terms and conditions about the custody of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6.
The respondent was basing her claim on the fact that she wanted to take the
child with her to Australia where she was employed for gain with a request to
revoke the visitation rights granted to the appellant for meeting the child.
This she felt will be conducive to the paramount interest and welfare of the
child. The appellant on the other hand sought permanent custody of the child
under the changed circumstances alleging that it is not in the interest of the
child to leave India permanently.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7.
The Trial Court vide its order dated 06.04.09 took notice of the fact that in
the joint petition of divorce, parties voluntarily agreed that the custody of
the child shall remain with the mother and father shall have only visiting
rights, in the manner indicated in the mutual divorce decree. The Court
modified the terms and 4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> conditions of the custody and visitation
rights of the appellant about the minor child. By its order the Trial Court had
allowed the respondent to take the child with her to Australia but also
directed her to bring the child back to India for allowing the father
visitation rights twice in a year i.e. for two terms - between 18th of December
to 26th of January and then from 26th of June to 11th of July.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8.
Being aggrieved by that order of the Trial Court, the appellant appealed to the
High Court. It was argued by the appellant since no decree was passed by the
Court while granting mutual divorce, an application under Section 26 of the Act
does not lie and in the absence of specific provision in the decree regarding
the custody and visitation rights of the child, the Trial Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition afresh after passing of the decree.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9.
The High Court took into consideration the provisions of Section 26 of the Act
and was of the view that the aforesaid provision is 5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> intended to enable the Court to pass suitable
orders from time to time to protect the interest of minor children. However,
the High Court held that after the final order is passed in original petition
of divorce for the custody of the minor child, the other party cannot file any
number of fresh petitions ignoring the earlier order passed by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
The Court took into consideration that even if the terms and conditions
regarding the custody and visitation rights of the child are not specifically
contained in the decree, they do form part of the petition seeking divorce by
mutual consent. It was of the view that absence of the terms and conditions in
the decree does not disentitle the respondent to file an application under
Section 26 of the Act seeking revocation of the visitation rights of the
appellant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11.
It is important to mention here that the learned Judge of the High Court had
personally interviewed the child who was about 7 years old 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> to ascertain his wishes. The child in
categorical terms expressed his desire to be in the custody and guardianship of
his mother, the respondent. The child appeared to be quite intelligent. The
child was specifically asked if he wanted to live with his father in India but
he unequivocally refused to go with or stay with him. He made it clear in his
expression that he was happy with his mother and maternal grandmother and
desired only to live with his mother. The aforesaid procedure was also followed
by the learned Trial Court and it was also of the same view after talking with
the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12.
Being aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court the appellant has
approached this Court and hence this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13.
We have also talked with the child in our chambers in the absence of his
parents. We found him to be quite intelligent and 7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> discerning. The child is in school and from
the behaviour of the child, we could make out that he is well behaved and that
he is receiving proper education.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14.
The child categorically stated that he wants to stay with his mother. It
appears to us that the child is about 8-10 years of age and is in a very
formative and impressionable stage in his life. The welfare of the child is of
paramount importance in matters relating to child custody and this Court has
held that welfare of the child may have a primacy even over statutory
provisions [<a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/858575/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">See Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayant Ganguli</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>- (2008) 7 SCC 673, para 19, page
678]. We have considered this matter in all its aspects.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in view of the
provisions of Section 26 of the Act, the order of custody of the child and the
visitation rights of the 8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> appellant cannot be changed as they are not
reflected in the decree of mutual divorce, is far too hyper technical an
objection to be considered seriously in a custody proceeding. A child is not a
chattel nor is he/she an article of personal property to be shared in equal
halves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16.
In a matter relating to custody of a child, this Court must remember that it is
dealing with a very sensitive issue in considering the nature of care and
affection that a child requires in the growing stages of his or her life. That
is why custody orders are always considered interlocutory orders and by the
nature of such proceedings custody orders cannot be made rigid and final. They
are capable of being altered and moulded keeping in mind the needs of the
child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/270778/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">In Rosy
Jacob vs. Jacob A Chakramakkal</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>-
[(1973) 1 SCC 840], a three judge Bench of 9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> this Court held that all orders relating to
custody of minors were considered to be temporary orders. The learned judges
made it clear that with the passage of time, the Court is entitled to modify
the order in the interest of the minor child. The Court went to the extent of
saying that even if orders are based on consent, those orders can also be
varied if the welfare of the child so demands.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18.
The aforesaid principle has again been followed in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/672255/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Dhanwanti
Joshi vs. Madhav Unde</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>-
[(1998) 1 SCC 112].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19.
Even though the aforesaid principles have been laid down in proceedings under
the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, these principles are equally applicable in
dealing with the custody of a child under Section 26 of the Act since in both
the situations two things are common; the first, being orders relating to
custody of a growing child and 10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> secondly, the paramount consideration of the
welfare of the child. Such considerations are never static nor can they be
squeezed in a strait jacket. Therefore, each case has to be dealt with on the
basis of its peculiar facts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20.
In this connection, the principles laid down by this Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/929793/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Gaurav
Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal</span></a>reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42 are very
pertinent. Those principles in paragraphs 42 and 43 are set out below:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;42.
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for custody of children and
declares that in any proceeding under the said Act, the court could make, from
time to time, such interim orders as it might deem just and proper with respect
to custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with
their wishes, wherever possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">43.
The principles in relation to the custody of a minor child are well<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">settled.
In determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child,
the paramount consideration is the &quot;welfare of the child&quot; and
not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in
force&quot;.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21.
That is why this Court has all along insisted on focussing the welfare of the
child and accepted it to be the paramount consideration guiding the Court's
discretion in custody order.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1304490/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">See
Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>- [AIR 1982 SC 1276], para 17.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22.
In the factual and legal background considered above, the objections raised by
the appellant do not hold much water.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23.
Now coming to the question of the child being taken to Australia and the
consequent variations in the visitation rights of the father, this Court finds
that the Respondent mother is getting a better job opportunity in Australia.
Her autonomy on her personhood cannot be curtailed by Court on the ground of a
prior order of custody of the child. Every person has a right to develop his or
her potential. In fact a right to development is a basic human right. The
respondent-mother cannot be asked to choose between her child 12<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> and her career. It is clear that the child is
very dear to her and she will spare no pains to ensure that the child gets
proper education and training in order to develop his faculties and ultimately
to become a good citizen. If the custody of the child is denied to her, she may
not be able to pursue her career in Australia and that may not be conducive
either to the development of her career or to the future prospects of the
child. Separating the child from his mother will be disastrous to both.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24.
Insofar as the father is concerned, he is already established in India and he
is also financially solvent. His visitation rights have been ensured in the
impugned orders of the High Court. His rights have been varied but have not
been totally ignored. The appellant-father, for all these years, lived without
the child and got used to it. 13<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25.
In the application dated 9.5.2008 filed before the Additional District Judge,
Delhi, the mother made it clear in paragraph 12 that she is ready to furnish
any undertaking or bond in order to ensure her return to India and to make
available to the father, his visitation rights subject to the education of the
child. This Court finds that so far as the order which had been passed by the
High Court, affirming the order of the Trial Court, the visitation rights of
the appellant-father have been so structured as to be compatible with the
educational career of the child. This Court finds that in this matter judicial
discretion has been properly balanced between the rights of the appellant and
those of the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26.
In that view of the matter, this Court refuses to interfere with the order
passed by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed with the direction that the
respondent-mother, 14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> before taking the child to Australia, must
file an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court of Additional District
Judge-01, (West), Delhi within a period of four weeks from date. No order as to
costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">.......................J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(G.S.SINGHVI)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">.......................J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ASOK
KUMAR GANGULY)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">New
Delhi<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-36609584299585674882013-01-10T22:11:00.000-08:002013-01-10T22:11:42.405-08:00foreign national Child Custody order in India<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="line-height: 24.33333396911621px;"><b>foreign national Child Custody order in India</b></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CRIMINAL
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">WRIT
PETITION (CRL.) NO.112/2007<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Dr.
V. Ravi Chandran ..Petitioner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Versus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Union
of India &amp; Ors. ..Respondents<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">R.M.
LODHA, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
is a boy of seven, born on July 1, 2002, in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America. He is a foreign national. The petition before<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">us is
by the father - Dr. V . Ravi Chandran--praying for a writ of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">habeas
corpus for the production of his minor son Adithya and for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">handing
over the custody and his passport to him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2. On
August 28, 2009, this Court passed an order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">requesting
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to trace<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
Adithya and produce him before this Court. The necessity of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">such
order arose as despite efforts made by the police officers and <br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
officials of different states, Adithya and his mother - respondent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">no.
6--Vijayasree Voora--could not be traced and their whereabouts<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">could
not be found for more than two years since the notice was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">issued
by this Court. In pursuance of the order dated August 28,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2009,
CBI issued look out notices on all India basis through heads of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">police
of States, Union Territories and Metropolitan Cities and also<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">alert
notices through Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Immigration),
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and flashed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">photographs
of the child Adithya and his mother Vijayasree Voora.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Ultimately
with its earnest efforts, CBI traced Adithya and his mother<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Vijayashree
Voora in Chennai on October 24, 2009 and brought them<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
Delhi and produced the child along with his mother at the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">residential
office of one of us (Tarun Chatterjee, J.) on October 25,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2009.
On that day, the CBI authorities were directed to keep the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">under
their custody and produce him before the Court on October 27,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2009.
Respondent no. 6 was also directed to be produced on that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">date.
On October 27, 2009, the matter was adjourned for November<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4,
2009 since respondent no.6 wanted to engage a lawyer and file a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">counter
affidavit. On November 4, 2009, matter was adjourned to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">November
10, 2009 and then to November 12, 2009. The petitioner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
permitted to meet the child for one hour on November 10, 2009<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
November 12, 2009. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 6 has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">filed
counter affidavit in opposition to the habeas corpus petition and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
has filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no.6.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3. We
heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior counsel for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
petitioner and Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no. 6. Now since minor Adithya has been produced, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">only
question that remains to be considered is with regard to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">prayer
made by the petitioner for handing over the custody of minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
to him with his passport.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4.
But before we do that, it is necessary to notice few<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">material
facts. Dr. V. Ravi Chandran - petitioner - is an American<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">citizen.
He and respondent no. 6 got married on December 14, 2000<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">at
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites. On July 1,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2002,
Adithya was born in United States of America. In the month of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">July
2003, respondent no. 6 approached the New York State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Supreme
Court for divorce and dissolution of marriage. A consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
governing the issues of custody and guardianship of minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
was passed by the New York State Supreme Court on April<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18,
2005. The Court granted joint custody of the child to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and respondent no. 6 and it was stipulated in the order to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">keep
the other party informed about the whereabouts of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">On
July 28, 2005, a Separation Agreement was entered between the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and respondent no.6 for distribution of marital property,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">spouse
maintenance and child support. As regards custody of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
son Adithya and parenting time, the petitioner and respondent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">no. 6
consented to the order dated April 18, 2005. On September 8,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2005,
the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.6 was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">dissolved
by the New York State Supreme Court. Child custody order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">dated
April 18, 2005 was incorporated in that order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5. Upon
the petition for modification of custody filed by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and the petition for enforcement filed by him and upon the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petition
for enforcement filed by respondent no.6 before the Family<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of the State of New York, on June 18, 2007, upon the consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
both parties, inter - alia, the following order came to be passed:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;ORDERED,
the parties shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child;
and it is further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> ORDERED, that commencing during August 2007,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
shall reside in Allen, Texas; and it is further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that the parties acknowledge that it is the intention of the parties to reside
within the same community. As such, it is the mother's current intention to
relocate to Texas, within a forty (40) mile radius of the father's residence.
If the mother does relocate to a forty (40) mile radius of the father's
residence (which shall be within a twenty (20) mile radius from the child's
school),, the parties shall equally share physical custody of Adithya. The
parties shall alternate physical custody on a weekly basis, with the exchange
being on Friday, at the end of the School day, or at the time when school would
ordinarily let out in the event that there is no school on Friday;
................ .....................................................................
.....................................................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that in the event that the mother does not relocate within forty (40) miles
from the father's residence located in Allen, Texas (and within twenty (20)
miles of Adithya's school), the mother shall have custodial time with the minor
child, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">A. On
Alternating weekends from Friday, at the end of the school day until Monday,
prior to the beginning of school, commencing during the first week of
September, 2007. Such periods of custodial time shall take place within forty
(40) miles from the father's residence located in Allen, Texas. In the event
that there is no school on the Friday of the mother's weekend, she shall have
custodial time with the child beginning at 7.00 a.m. on Friday morning, and, in
the event that there is no school on Monday of the mother's custodial weekend,
she shall have custodial time until 5.00 p.m. on Monday, and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">B.
For ten (10) consecutive days during Spring vacation from school; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">C.
For the entirety of the Christmas recess from School, except for Christmas Eve
and Christmas day, which shall be with the father. In the event that the school
recess is prior to Christmas Eve, the mother shall have the right to have
custodial time during those recessed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> days to long as she produces the child at the
father's residence for Christmas Eve and Christmas day ; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">D.
During the following holidays:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">i)
Mother's birthday, which is on April 25;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ii)
Mother's Day;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">iii)
Hindu Festival of Diwali and Deepavali;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">iv)
Adithya's birthday (July 1) in alternating years;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">v)
Thanks giving in alternating years (so that the mother has custodial time
during even -<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">numbered
years and the father has custodial<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">time
during odd - numbered years);<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">vi)
New Year's Day in alternating years (so that the mother has custodial time
during even -<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">numbered
years and the father has custodial<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">time
during odd -numbered years) ;............ .................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">............................................................
ORDERED, that the parties shall share the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">summer
recess from school so that the mother has custodial time for a total of up to
fifty (50) days on a schedule so that each party has custodial time for 4
consecutive weeks, with the mother's custodial time commencing on the Monday
following the final day of school..........<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
for the summer of 2007, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">mother
shall have custodial time from June 18 until June 20; the father shall have
custodial time from June 20 until June 24; the mother shall have custodial time
from June 25 until July 1; the father shall have custodial time from July 1
until July 6; and the mother shall then have custodial time from July 6 until
August 3 and she shall be solely responsible for transporting the child to the
father's residence in Allen, Texas on August 3. The father shall have custodial
time until the commencement of school. Thereafter the father shall continue to
have custodial time until such time as the mother either a) returns from India
and/or begins her alternating weekly<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> schedule as set froth herein, or b) moves
within 40 miles of the father's residence in Allen, Texas and commences her
custodial time during alternating weeks;....................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">.............................................................
.............................................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that each party agrees that they<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">shall
provide the other parent with a phone number and address where the child will
be located at all time, and that the other parent shall have reasonable and
regular telephone communication with the minor child; and it is further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ORDERED,
that each party agrees to provide<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
other party with the child's passport during each custodial exchange of the minor
child, and that each party shall sign and deliver to the other, whatever
written authorization may be necessary for travel with the child within the
Continental United States or
abroad;&quot;..............................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6. On
June 28, 2007 respondent no.6 brought minor Adithya<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
India informing the petitioner that she would be residing with her<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">parents
in Chennai. On August 08, 2007, the petitioner filed the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petition
for modification (Custody) and Violation Petition (Custody)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">before
the Family Court of the State of New York on which a show<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">cause
notice came to be issued to respondent no.6. On that very<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">day,
the petitioner was granted temporary sole legal and physical<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">custody
of Adithya and respondent no. 6 was directed to immediately<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">turn
over the minor child and his passport to the petitioner and further<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">her
custodial time with the minor child was suspended and it was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ordered
that the issue of custody of Adithya shall be heard in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">jurisdiction
of the United States Courts, specifically, the Albany<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">County
Family Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7. It
transpires that the Family Court of the State of New<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">York
has issued child abuse non-bailable warrants against<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no.6.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8. In
the backdrop of the aforenoticed facts, we have to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consider--now
since the child has been produced--what should be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
appropriate order in the facts and circumstances keeping in mind<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
interest of the child and the orders of the courts of the country of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">which
the child is a national.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9. In
re B--'s Settlement,1 Chancery Division was concerned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">with
an application for custody by the father of an infant who had<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">been
made a ward of court. The father was a Belgian national and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
mother a British national who took Belgian nationality on marriage<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
him. The infant was born in Belgium. The mother was granted a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">divorce
by a judgment of the Court in Belgium, but the judgment was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">reversed
and the father became entitled to custody by the common<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1940}
Ch. 54<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">law
of Belgium. The mother, who had gone to live in England, visited<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Belgium
and was by arrangement given the custody of the infant for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">some
days. She took him to England and did not return him. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">infant
had been living with mother in England for nearly two years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
father began divorce proceedings in Belgium, and the Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">appointed
him guardian. Pending the proceedings, the Court gave<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">him
the custody and ordered the mother to return the infant within<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">twenty-four
hours of service of the order on her. She did not return<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
infant. The Correctional Court in Brussels fined her for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">disobedience
and sentenced her to imprisonment should the fine be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">not
paid. The Correctional Court also confirmed the custody order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">In
the backdrop of these facts, the summons taken out by the father<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
custody of the infant be given to him came up before Morton, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">who
after hearing the parties and in view of the provisions of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Guardianship
of Infants Act, 1925 observed thus:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;...At
the moment my feeling is very strong that, even assuming in the father's favour
that there is nothing in his character or habits which would render him
unfitted to have the custody of the child, the welfare of the child requires,
in all the circumstances as they exist, that he should remain in England for the
time being..............................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> In the present case the position is that
nearly two years ago, when the child was already in England, an interlocutory
order was made by the Divorce Court in Belgium giving the custody of the child
to the father I do not know how far, if at all, the matter was considered on
the footing of what was best for the child at that time, or whether it was
regarded as a matter of course that the father, being the guardian by the
common law of Belgium and the applicant in the divorce proceedings and the only
parent in Belgium, should be given the custody. I cannot regard that order as
rendering it in any way improper or contrary to the comity of nations if I now
consider, when the boy has been in this country for nearly two years, what is
in the best interests of the boy. I do not think it would be right for the
Court, exercising its jurisdiction over a ward who is in this country, although
he is a Belgian national, blindly to follow the order made in Belgium on
October 5, 1937. I think the present case differs from Nugent v. Vetzera
{FN10}, the case that was before Page Wood V.-C., and it is to be observed that
even in that case, and in the special circumstances of that case, the
Vice-Chancellor guarded himself against anything like abdication of the control
of this Court over its wards. It does not appear what the Vice-Chancellor's
view would have been if there had been evidence, for example, that it would be
most detrimental to the health and well-being of the children if they were
removed from England and sent to
Austria..................................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">........I
ought to give due weight to any views formed by the Courts of the country
whereof the infant is a national. But I desire to say quite plainly that in my
view this Court is bound in every case, without exception, to treat the welfare
of its ward as being the first and paramount consideration, whatever orders may
have been made by the Courts of any other country.&quot;..................
.................. .............<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
In Mark T. Mc.Kee vs. Eyelyn McKee2, the Privy Council<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
concerned with an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">That
was a case where the parents of the infant were American<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1951}
A.C. 352<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">citizens.
They were married in America and to whom a son was born<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
California in July 1940. They separated in December 1940 and on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">September
4, 1941, executed an agreement which provided,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">inter-
alia, that neither of them should remove the child out of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States without the written permission of the other. By a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">judgment
of December 17, 1942, in divorce proceedings before the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Superior
Court of the State of California, the custody of the child was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">awarded
to the father. On August 1, 1945, following applications by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
father and the mother, the previous order as to custody was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">modified
to provide full custody of the child to the mother with right of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">reasonable
visitation to the father. Thereafter, and without the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consent
or knowledge of the mother, the father went from the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America with the child into the Province of Ontario.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
mother thereupon instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Supreme
Court of Ontario seeking to have the child delivered to her.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Wells,
J., before whom the matter came held that infant's best<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">interests
would be served in the custody of his father. The Court of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Appeal
for Ontario dismissed the appeal preferred by the mother.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">However,
the Supreme Court of Canada by majority judgment<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">allowed
the appeal of the mother and set aside the order of custody<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
child to the father. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">at
the instance of the father, the Privy Council held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;..........For,
after reaffirming &quot;the well established general rule that in all questions
relating to the custody of an infant the paramount consideration is the welfare
of the infant&quot;, he observed that no case had been referred to which
established the proposition that, where the facts were such as he found them to
exist in the case, the salient features of which have been stated, a parent by
the simple expedient of taking the child with him across the border into
Ontario for the sole purpose of avoiding obedience to the judgment of the
court, whose jurisdiction he himself invoked, becomes &quot;entitled as of
right to have the whole question retried in our courts and to have them reach a
anew and independent judgment as to what is best for the infant&quot;. and
it is, in effect, because he held that the father had no such right that the
judge allowed the appeal of the mother, and that the Supreme Court made the
order already referred to. But with great respect to the judge, this was not
the question which had to be determined. It is possible that a case might arise
in which it appeared to a court, before which the question of custody of an
infant came, that it was in the best interests of that infant that it should
not look beyond the circumstances in which its jurisdiction was invoked and for
that reason give effect to the foreign judgment without further inquiry. But it
is the negation of the proposition, from which every judgment in this case has
proceeded, namely, that the infant's welfare is the paramount consideration, to
say that where the trial judge has in his discretion thought fit not to take
the drastic course above indicated, but to examine all the circumstances and
form an independent judgment, his decision ought for that reason to be
overruled. Once it is conceded that the court of Ontario had jurisdiction to
entertain the question of custody and that it need not blindly follow an order
made by a foreign court, the consequence cannot be escaped that it must form an
independent judgment on the question, though in doing so it will give proper
weight to the foreign judgment. What is the proper weight will depend on the
circumstances of each case. It may be that, if the matter comes before the
court of Ontario within a very short time of the foreign judgment and there is
no new circumstance to be considered, the weight may be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> so great that such an order as the Supreme
Court made in this case could be justified. But if so, it would be not because
the court of Ontario, having assumed jurisdiction, then abdicated it, but
because in the exercise of its jurisdiction it determined what was for the
benefit of the infant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It
cannot be ignored that such consequences might follow as are suggested by
Cartwright, J. The disappointed parent might meet stratagem by stratagem and,
taking the child into the Province of Manitoba, invoke the protection of its
courts, whose duty it would then be to determine the question of custody. That
is a consideration which, with others, must be weighed by the trial judge. It
is not, perhaps, a consideration which in the present case should have weighed
heavily.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It
has been said that the weight or persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must
depend on the circumstances of each case. In the present case there was ample
reason for the trial judge, in the first place, forming the opinion that he
should not take the drastic course of following it without independent inquiry
and, in the second place, coming to a different conclusion as to what was for
the infant's benefit.&quot;...................................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11.
The aforesaid two cases came up for consideration in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Harben
vs. Harben3, wherein Sachs J. observed as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;It
has always been the practice of this court to ensure that a parent should not
gain advantage by the use of fraud or force in relation to the kidnapping of
children from the care of the other spouse, save perhaps where there is some
quite overwhelming reason in the children's interest why the status quo should
not be restored by the court before deciding further issues. In the present
case I am concerned with three young children, two of whom are girls and the
youngest is aged only three. It is a particularly wicked thing to snatch such
children from the care of a mother, and, in saying that, I have in mind not
merely the mother's position but the harm that can be done 3<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1957}
1. W.L.R. 261<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> to the children. No affidavit of the husband
tendering either his regrets or any vestige of excuse for his action has been
proffered. Further, as I have already mentioned, when first I asked Mr. Syms
what was the nature of the case which he might wish to make, if so minded, for
depriving these children of a mother's care, he only spoke of her association
with a certain man and never suggested that she had in any way whatsoever
failed to look after the children properly.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12.
In Kernot vs. Kernot4 , the facts were thus: In May 1961,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
plaintiff mother, an Italian lady, married an English man in Italy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">where
both were residents. A boy was born there on March 29, 1962.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">On
October 19, 1963, they obtained in Italian Court a separation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
by consent providing therein that custody of the child would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">remain
with father, with rights of access to the mother . On October<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29,
1963, the father brought the infant to England with intention to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">make
England his home. The mother commenced wardship<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">proceedings
in which she brought a motion for an order that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">father
return the infant to her in Italy. She also prayed for restraint<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
against him from taking the infant out of her care. Buckley, J. in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">these
facts held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;So
that even where a foreign court has made an order on the merits - which is not
the present case, because the only order which has been made was a consent
order without any investigation of the merits by the Italian court - that
domestic court before whom the matter comes (the Ontario 4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">{1965}
Ch.217<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> court in the case to which I have just
referred, or this court in the case before me) is bound to consider what is in
the best interests of the infant; and although the order of the foreign court
will be attended to as one of the circumstances to be taken into account it is
not conclusive one way or the other. How much stronger must the duty of this
court be to entertain the case where the foreign court has not made any order
based on any investigation of the case on its merits.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13.
In re H. (Infants)5, the Court of Appeal was concerned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">with
two American boys whose divorced parents were both citizens<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
United States of America. On December 11, 1964, the Supreme<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of New York State made a consent order directing that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">two
boys whose custody had been given to the mother should be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">maintained
in her apartment in New York and not be removed from<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">a 50
miles' radius of Peekskill without the prior written consent of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
father. However, the mother in March 1965 brought these boys<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
England and bought a house for herself and children in June<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1965.
On June 15, 1965, the New York Court ordered the children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to be
returned to New York. The mother started wardship<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">proceedings
in the English court. The father took out motion asking<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
mother that the two children should be delivered into his care,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
he should be at liberty to convey them to New York and that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">wardship
of the children should be discharged. The Trial Judge held 5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1966)
1 W.L.R. 381 = (1966) 1 All.E.R. 886<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
the justice of the case required the children to be returned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">without
delay to the jurisdiction of the New York court, so that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">question
of where and with whom they should live might be decided<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">as
soon as possible by that court. The mother appealed to the Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
Appeal. Willmer L.J. and Harman L.J. by their separate judgments<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">affirmed
the view of the Trial Judge and held that the proper order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
to send these two boys back to their State of New York, where<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">they
belong (and where the Supreme Court is already seized of their<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">case),
and more especially so having regard to the fact that they<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">have
been kept in flagrant contempt of New York Court's order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Willmer
L.J. agreed with the remark of Cross J. where he said:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
sudden and unauthorized removal of children from one country to another is far
too frequent nowadays, and as it seems to me it is the duty of all courts in
all countries to do all they can to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain an
advantage by his wrongdoing.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Willmer
L.J. went on to hold:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
judge took the view (and I think it was the right view) that in a case such as
the present it was not necessary to go into all the disputed questions between
the parents, but that he ought to send these boys back to their own country to
be dealt with by the court of their own country, provided that he was satisfied
(as he was satisfied, having seen the father himself, and having had the
benefit of the view expressed on behalf of the Official Solicitor) that they
would come to no harm if the father took them back to the United States; and
that this was so, even though it might<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> subsequently turn out, after all the merits of
the case had been thoroughly thrashed out in the court in New York, that it
would perhaps be better after all for the boys to reside in England and see
little or nothing of their father.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Harman
L.J. in his separate judgment held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;.......But
if he chose to take the course which the judge here took in the interests of
the children , as he thought, of sending them back to the United States with no
more inquiry into the matter than to ensure, so far as he could, that there was
no danger to their moral or physical health in taking that course, I am of
opinion that he was amply justified, and that that was the right way in which
to approach the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">These
children had been the subject of an order (it is true made by consent) made in
the courts of their own country in December, 1964. It was only three months
later that the mother flouted that order, deceived her own advisers and
deceived the court , and brought the children here with the object of taking
them right out of their father's life and depriving him altogether of their
society. The interval is so short that it seems to me that the court inevitably
was bound to view the matter through those spectacles; that is to say, that the
order having been made so shortly before, and there being no difference in the
circumstances in the three months which had elapsed , there was no
justification for the course which the mother had taken, and that she was not
entitled to seek to bolster her own wrong by seeking the assistance of this
court in perpetuating that position, and seeking to change the situation to the
father's disadvantage.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14.
In re. L (minors)6, the Court of Appeal was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerned
with the custody of the foreign children who were<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">removed
from foreign jurisdiction by one parent. That was a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">case
where a German national domiciled and resident in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Germany
married an English woman. Their matrimonial home 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1974)
1 All ER 913<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
Germany and the two children were born out of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">wedlock
and brought up in Germany. The lady became<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">unhappy
in her married life and in August, 1972, she brought<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">her
children to England with an intention of permanently<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">establishing
herself and the children in England. She obtained<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">residential
employment in the school in England and the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
were accommodated at the school. The children not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">having
returned to Germany, the father came to England to find<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">them.
On October 25, 1972, the mother issued an originating<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">summons
making them wards of court. The trial judge found<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">that
the children should be brought up by their mother and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">treating
the case as a `kidnapping' class of case, approached<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
matter by observing that in such a case where the children<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">were
foreign children, who had moved in a foreign home, their<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">life
should continue in what were their natural surroundings,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">unless
it appeared to the court that it would be harmful to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
if they were returned. He concluded that in view of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">arrangements
which their father could make for them, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
would not be harmed by being returned. He,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">accordingly,
ordered that they be returned to Germany and that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">they
remain in their father's custody until further order. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">mother
appealed, contending that in every case the welfare of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
child was the first and paramount consideration and that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">welfare
of the children would be best served by staying with<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">their
mother in England. Buckley, LJ in his detailed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consideration
of the matter, wherein he referred to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">aforenoticed
decisions and few other decisions as well, held as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">follows
:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;.......Where
the court has embarked on a full-scale investigation of that facts, the
applicable principles, in my view, do not differ from those which apply to any
other wardship case. The action of one party in kidnapping the child is
doubtless one of the circumstances to be taken into account, any may be a
circumstance of great weight; the weight to be attributed to it must depend on
the circumstances of the particular case. The court may conclude that
notwithstanding the conduct of the `kidnapper' the child should remain in his
or her care (McKee v. McKee, Re E (an infant) and Re. T.A. (infants), where the
order was merely interim); or it may conclude that the child should be returned
to his or her native country or the jurisdiction from which he or she has been
removed. Where a court makes a summary order for the return of a child to a
foreign country without investigating the merits, the same principles, in my
judgment apply, but the decision must be justified on somewhat different
grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">..............................................................................
...........The judge may well be persuaded that it would be better for the
child that those merits should be investigated in a court in his native country
than that he should spend in this country the period which must necessarily
elapse before all the evidence can be assembled for adjudication here. Anyone
who has had experience of the exercise of this delicate jurisdiction knows what
complications can result from a child developing roots in new soil, and what
conflicts this can occasion in the child's own life. Such roots can grow
rapidly. An order that the child should be returned forthwith to the country
from which he has been removed in the expectation that any dispute about his
custody will be satisfactorily<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> resolved in the courts of that country may
well be regarded as being in the best interests of the child......&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15.
In re. L. (minors)6, the Court of Appeal has made a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">distinction
between cases, where the court considers the facts and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">fully
investigates the merits of a dispute, in a wardship matter in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">which
the welfare of the child concerned is not the only consideration<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">but
is the first and paramount consideration, and cases where the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
do not embark on a full-scale investigation of the facts and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">make
a summary order for the return of a child to a foreign country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">without
investigating the merits. In this regard, Buckley, L.J. noticed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">what
was indicated by the Privy Council in McKee v. McKee2 that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">there
may be cases in which it is proper for a court in one jurisdiction<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
make an order directing that a child be returned to a foreign<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">jurisdiction
without investigating the merits of the dispute relating to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
care of the child on the ground that such an order is in the best<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">interest
of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16.
This Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Sandhu
and Another7 was concerned with the custody of a child--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">British
citizen by birth--to the parents of Indian citizens, who after<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1984)
3 SCC 698<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">their
marriage settled in England. The child was removed by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">husband
from the house when the wife was in the factory where she<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
working and brought him to India. The wife obtained an order<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">under
Section 41(English) Supreme Court Act, 1981 whereby the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">husband
was directed to handover the custody of the boy to her. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">said
order was later on confirmed by the High Court in England. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">wife
then came to India and filed a writ petition under Article 226 in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
High Court praying for production and custody of the child. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">High
Court dismissed her writ petition against which the wife<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">appealed
before this Court. Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. (as he then was)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">speaking
for the Court held thus :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
modern theory of Conflict of Laws recognises and, in any event, prefers the
jurisdiction of the State which has the most intimate contact with the issues
arising in the case. Jurisdiction is not attracted by the operation or creation
of fortuitous circumstances such as the circumstance as to where the child,
whose custody is in issue, is brought or for the time being lodged. To allow
the assumption of jurisdiction by another State in such circumstances will only
result in encouraging forum-shopping. Ordinarily, jurisdiction must follow upon
functional lines. That is to say, for example, that in matters relating to
matrimony and custody, the law of that place must govern which has the closest
concern with the well-being of the spouses and the welfare of the offsprings of
marriage. The spouses in this case had made England their home where this boy
was born to them. The father cannot deprive the English Court of its
jurisdiction to decide upon his custody by removing him to India, not in the
normal movement of the matrimonial home but, by an act which was gravely detrimental
to the peace of that home. The fact that the matrimonial home of the spouses
was in England, establishes sufficient contacts or ties with that State in
order to make it reasonable and just for the courts of that State to assume
jurisdiction to enforce obligations which were<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> incurred therein by the spouses. (See
International Shoe Company v. State of Washington which was not a matrimonial
case but which is regarded as the fountainhead of the subsequent developments
of jurisdictional issues like the one involved in the instant case.) It is our
duty and function to protect the wife against the burden of litigating in an
inconvenient forum which she and her husband had left voluntarily in order to
make their living in England, where they gave birth to this unfortunate
boy.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17.
In Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Another8,
this Court held that it was the duty of courts in all countries<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
see that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">country
does not gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">para
9 of the report, this Court considered the decision of the Court of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Appeal
in re H.5 and approved the same in the following words:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;9.
In Re H. (infants) [(1966) 1 All ER 886] the Court of Appeal in England had occasion
to consider a somewhat similar question. That case concerned the abduction to
England of two minor boys who were American citizens. The father was a natural-
born American citizen and the mother, though of Scottish origin, had been
resident for 20 years in the United States of America. They were divorced in
1953 by a decree in Mexico, which embodied provisions entrusting the custody of
the two boys to the mother with liberal access to the father. By an amendment
made in that order in December 1964, a provision was incorporated that the boys
should reside at all times in the State of New York and should at all times be
under the control and jurisdiction of the State of New York. In March 1965, the
mother removed the boys to England, without having obtained the approval of the
New York court, and without having consulted the father; she purchased a house
in England with the intention of remaining there permanently and of cutting off
all contacts with the father. She ignored an order made in June 1965, by the
Supreme Court of New York State to return the boys there. On a motion on notice
given by the father in the Chancery Division of the Court in England, the trial
Judge Cross, J. directed that since the children were American children and the
8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1987)
1 SCC 42<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> American court was the proper court to decide
the issue of custody, and as it was the duty of courts in all countries to see
that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of their country did not
gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing, the court without going into the
merits of the question as to where and with whom the children should live,
would order that the children should go back to America. In the appeal filed
against the said judgment in the Court of Appeal, Willmer, L.J. while dismissing
the appeal extracted with approval the following passage from the judgment of
Cross, J. [(1965) 3 All ER at p. 912. (Ed. : Source of the second quoted para
could not be traced.)]:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
sudden and unauthorised removal of children from one country to another is far
too frequent nowadays, and as it seems to me, it is the duty of all courts in
all countries to do all they can to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain an
advantage by his wrongdoing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
courts in all countries ought, as I see it, to be careful not to do anything to
encourage this tendency. This substitution of self-help for due process of law
in this field can only harm the interests of wards generally, and a Judge
should, as I see it, pay regard to the orders of the proper foreign court unless
he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would inflict serious
harm on the child.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
With respect we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid enunciation of the
principles of law to be applied by the courts in situations such as
this.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18.
In the case of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/672255/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Dhanwanti
Joshi v. Madhav Unde9,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>this<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
was again concerned with the matter relating to removal of a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child
from one country to another contrary to custody order of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
from where the child was removed. This court considered<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">English
decisions, inter alia, McKee v. McKee2 and H. (infants), re.5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
also noticed the decision of this Court in Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
observed as follows :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1998)
1 SCC 112<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> &quot;28. The leading case in this behalf
is the one rendered by the Privy Council in 1951, in McKee v. McKee [(1951) AC
352]. In that case, the parties, who were American citizens, were married in
USA in 1933 and lived there till December 1946. But they had separated in
December 1940. On 17-12-1941, a decree of divorce was passed in USA and custody
of the child was given to the father and later varied in favour of the mother.
At that stage, the father took away the child to Canada. In habeas corpus
proceedings by the mother, though initially the decisions of lower courts went
against her, the Supreme Court of Canada gave her custody but the said Court
held that the father could not have the question of custody retried in Canada
once the question was adjudicated in favour of the mother in the USA earlier.
On appeal to the Privy Council, Lord Simonds held that in proceedings relating
to custody before the Canadian Court, the welfare and happiness of the infant
was of paramount consideration and the order of a foreign court in USA as to
his custody can be given due weight in the circumstances of the case, but such
an order of a foreign court was only one of the facts which must be taken into
consideration. It was further held that it was the duty of the Canadian Court
to form an independent judgment on the merits of the matter in regard to the
welfare of the child. The order of the foreign court in US would yield to the
welfare of the child. &quot;Comity of courts demanded not its enforcement,
but its grave consideration&quot;. This case arising from Canada which lays
down the law for Canada and U.K. has been consistently followed in latter
cases. This view was reiterated by the House of Lords in J v. C (1970 AC 668).
This is the law also in USA (see 24 American Jurisprudence, para 1001) and
Australia. (See Khamis v. Khamis [(1978) 4 Fam LR 410 (Full Court) (Aus)].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29.
However, there is an apparent contradiction between the above view and the one
expressed in H. (infants), Re[(1966) 1 All ER 886] and in E. (an infant), Re
[(1967) 1 All ER 881] to the effect that the court in the country to which the
child is removed will send back the child to the country from which the child
has been removed. This apparent conflict was explained and resolved by the
Court of Appeal in 1974 in L. (minors) (wardship : jurisdiction), Re [(1974) 1
All ER 913, CA] and in R. (minors) (wardship : jurisdiction), Re [(1981) 2 FLR
416 (CA)]. It was held by the Court of Appeal in L., Re [(1974) 1 All ER 913,
CA] that the view in McKee v. McKee [1951 A.C. 352 : (1951) All ER 942] is
still the correct view and that the limited question which arose in the latter
decisions was whether the court in the country to which the child was removed
could conduct (a) a summary inquiry or (b) an elaborate inquiry on the question
of custody. In the case of (a) a summary inquiry, the court would return
custody to the country from which the child was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">removed
unless such return could be shown to be harmful to the child. In the case of
(b) an elaborate inquiry, the court could go into the merits as to where the
permanent welfare lay and ignore the order of the foreign court or treat the
fact of removal of the child from another country as only one of the
circumstances. The crucial question as to whether the Court (in the country to
which the child is removed) would exercise the summary or elaborate procedure
is to be determined according to the child's welfare. The summary jurisdiction
to return the child is invoked, for example, if the child had been removed from
its native land and removed to another country where, maybe, his native
language is not spoken, or the child gets divorced from the social customs and
contacts to which he has been accustomed, or if its education in his native
land is interrupted and the child is being subjected to a foreign system of
education, -- for these are all acts which could psychologically disturb the
child. Again the summary jurisdiction is exercised only if the court to which
the child has been removed is moved promptly and quickly, for in that event,
the Judge may well be persuaded that it would be better for the child that
those merits should be investigated in a court in his native country on the
expectation that an early decision in the native country could be in the
interests of the child before the child could develop roots in the country to
which he had been removed. Alternatively, the said court might think of
conducting an elaborate inquiry on merits and have regard to the other facts of
the case and the time that has lapsed after the removal of the child and
consider if it would be in the interests of the child not to have it returned
to the country from which it had been removed. In that event, the unauthorised
removal of the child from the native country would not come in the way of the
court in the country to which the child has been removed, to ignore the removal
and independently consider whether the sending back of the child to its native
country would be in the paramount interests of the child. (See Rayden &amp;
Jackson, 15th Edn., 1988, pp. 1477-79; Bromley, Family law, 7th Edn., 1987.) In
R. (minors) (wardship : jurisdiction), Re [(1981) 2 FLR 416 (CA)] it has been
firmly held that the concept of forum conveniens has no place in wardship
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">30.
We may here state that this Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/271434/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>[(1987)
1 SCC 42 : 1987 SCC (Crl.) 13] while dealing with a child removed by the father
from USA contrary to the custody orders of the US Court directed that the child
be sent back to USA to the mother not only because of the principle of comity
but also because, on facts, -- which were independently considered -- it was in
the interests of the child to be sent back to the native State. There the
removal of the child by the father and the mother's<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> application in India were within six months.
In that context, this Court referred to H. (infants), Re which case, as pointed
out by us above has been explained in L. Re as a case where the Court thought
it fit to exercise its summary jurisdiction in the interests of the child. Be
that as it may, the general principles laid down in McKee v. McKee and J v. C
and the distinction between summary and elaborate inquiries as stated in L.
(infants), Re are today well settled in UK, Canada, Australia and the USA. The
same principles apply in our country. Therefore nothing precludes the Indian
courts from considering the question on merits, having regard to the delay from
1984 -- even assuming that the earlier orders passed in India do not operate as
constructive res judicata.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">However,
in view of the fact that the child had lived with his<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">mother
in India for nearly twelve years, this Court held that it would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">not
exercise a summary jurisdiction to return the child to United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America on the ground that its removal from USA in 1984<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
contrary to orders of U.S. Courts. It was also held that whenever<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">a
question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of a minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child,
matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">best
serve the interest of the minor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19.
In the case of Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma10, this<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
was seized with a matter where the mother had removed the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">children
from U.S.A. despite the order of the American Court. It was<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">held
:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(2000)
3 SCC 14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> &quot;6. Therefore, it will not be proper
to be guided entirely by the fact that the appellant Sarita had removed the
children from U.S.A. despite the order of the Court of that country. So also,
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the
American Court though a relevant factor, cannot override the consideration of
welfare of the minor children. We have already stated earlier that in U.S.A.
respondent Sushil is staying along with his mother aged about 80 years. There
is no one else in the family. The respondent appears to be in the habit of
taking excessive alcohol. Though it is true that both the children have
American citizenship and there is a possibility that in U.S.A they may be able
to get better education, it is doubtful if the respondent will be in a position
to take proper care of the children when they are so young. Out of them, one is
a female child. She is aged about 5 years. Ordinarily, a female child should be
allowed to remain with the mother so that she can be properly looked after. It
is also not desirable that two children are separated from each other. If a
female child has to stay with the mother, it will be in the interest of both
the children that they both stay with the mother. Here in India also proper
care of the children is taken and they are at present studying in good schools.
We have not found the appellant wanting in taking proper care of the children.
Both the children have a desire to stay with the mother. At the same time it
must be said that the son, who is elder then the daughter, has good feelings
for his father also. Considering all the aspects relating to the welfare of the
children, we are of the opinion that in spite of the order passed by the Court
in U.S.A. it was not proper for the High Court to have allowed the habeas
corpus writ petition and directed the appellant to hand over custody of the
children to the respondent and permit him to take them away to U.S.A. What
would be in the interest of the children requires a full and thorough inquiry
and, therefore, the High Court should have directed the respondent to initiate
appropriate proceedings in which such an inquiry can be held. Still there is
some possibility of the mother returning to U.S.A. in the interest of the
children. Therefore, we do not desire to say anything more regarding
entitlement of the custody of the children. The chances of the appellant
returning to U.S.A. with the children would depend upon the joint efforts of
the appellant and the respondent to get the arrest warrant cancelled by
explaining to the Court in U.S.A. the circumstances under which she had left
U.S.A. with the children without taking permission of the Court. There is a
possibility that both of them may thereafter be able to approach the Court
which passed the decree to suitably modify the order with respect to the
custody of the children and visitation rights.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">27<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20.
While dealing with a case of custody of a child removed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">by a
parent from one country to another in contravention to the orders<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
in the country to which child has been removed must first<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consider
the question whether the court could conduct an elaborate<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">enquiry
on the question of custody or by dealing with the matter<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">summarily
order a parent to return custody of the child to the country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">from
which the child was removed and all aspects relating to child's<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">welfare
be investigated in a court in his own country. Should the court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">take
a view that an elaborate enquiry is necessary, obviously the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
is bound to consider the welfare and happiness of the child as<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
paramount consideration and go into all relevant aspects of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">welfare
of child including stability and security, loving and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">understanding
care and guidance and full development of the child's<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">character,
personality and talents. While doing so, the order of a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">foreign
court as to his custody may be given due weight; the weight<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">circumstances
of each case. However, in a case where the court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">decides
to exercise its jurisdiction summarily to return the child to his<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">own
country, keeping in view the jurisdiction of the Court in the native<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">28<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">country
which has the closest concern and the most intimate contact<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">with
the issues arising in the case, the court may leave the aspects<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">relating
to the welfare of the child to be investigated by the court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">his
own native country as that could be in the best interest of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child.
The indication given in McKee v. McKee2 that there may be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">cases
in which it is proper for a court in one jurisdiction to make an<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
directing that a child be returned to a foreign jurisdiction without<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">investigating
the merits of the dispute relating to the care of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">on
the ground that such an order is in the best interest of the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">has
been explained in re. L (minors)6 and the said view has been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">approved
by this Court in Dhanwanti Joshi9. Similar view taken by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of Appeal in re. H5 has been approved by this Court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Elizabeth
Dinshaw8.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21.
Do the facts and circumstances of the present case<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">warrant
an elaborate enquiry into the question of custody of minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
and should the parties be relegated to the said procedure<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">before
appropriate forum in this country in this regard? In our<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">judgment,
this is not required. Admittedly, Adithya is an American<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">citizen,
born and brought up in United States of America. He has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">spent
his initial years there. The natural habitat of Adithya is in United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America. As a matter of fact, keeping in view the welfare<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
happiness of the child and in his best interest, the parties have<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">obtained
series of consent orders concerning his custody/parenting<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">rights,
maintenance etc. from the competent courts of jurisdiction in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">America.
Initially, on April 18, 2005, a consent order governing the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">issues
of custody and guardianship of minor Adithya was passed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
New York State Supreme Court whereunder the court granted<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">joint
custody of the child to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 and it<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">whereabouts
of the child. In a separation agreement entered into<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">between
the parties on July 28, 2005, the consent order dated April<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18,
2005 regarding custody of minor son Adithya continued. In<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">September
8, 2005 order whereby the marriage between the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petitioner
and respondent no. 6 was dissolved by the New York State<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Supreme
Court, again the child custody order dated April 18, 2005<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">was
incorporated. Then the petitioner and respondent no. 6 agreed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">for
modification of the custody order and, accordingly, the Family<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Court
of the State of New York on June 18, 2007 ordered that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">parties
shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
and, in this regard, a comprehensive arrangement in respect<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">30<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the custody of the child has been made. The fact that all orders<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerning
the custody of the minor child Adithya have been passed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">by
American courts by consent of the parties shows that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">objections
raised by respondent no. 6 in counter affidavit about<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">deprivation
of basic rights of the child by the petitioner in the past;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">failure
of petitioner to give medication to the child; denial of education<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
the minor child; deprivation of stable environment to the minor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child;
and child abuse are hollow and without any substance. The<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">objection
raised by the respondent no. 6 in the counter affidavit that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
American courts which passed the order/decree had no<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">jurisdiction
and being inconsistent to Indian laws cannot be executed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
India also prima facie does not seem to have any merit since<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">despite
the fact that the respondent no. 6 has been staying in India<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">for
more than two years, she has not pursued any legal proceeding<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">for
the sole custody of the minor Adithya or for declaration that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">orders
passed by the American courts concerning the custody of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
child Adithya are null and void and without jurisdiction. Rather<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">it
transpires from the counter affidavit that initially respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">initiated
the proceedings under Guardianship and Wards Act but later<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">on
withdrew the same. The facts and circumstances noticed above<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">31<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">leave
no manner of doubt that merely because the child has been<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">brought
to India by respondent no. 6, the custody issue concerning<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
child Adithya does not deserve to be gone into by the courts in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">India
and it would be in accord with principles of comity as well as on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">facts
to return the child back to the United States of America from<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">where
he has been removed and enable the parties to establish the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">case
before the courts in the native State of the child, i.e. United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America for modification of the existing custody orders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">There
is nothing on record which may even remotely suggest that it<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">would
be harmful for the child to be returned to his native country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22.
It is true that child Adithya has been in India for almost<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">two
years since he was removed by the mother--respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">--contrary
to the custody orders of the U.S. court passed by consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the parties. It is also true that one of the factors to be kept in mind<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
exercise of summary jurisdiction in the interest of child is that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">application
for custody/return of the child is made promptly and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">quickly
after the child has been removed. This is so because any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">delay
may result in child developing roots in the country to which he<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">has
been removed. From the counter affidavit that has been filed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no. 6, it is apparent that in last two years child Adithya did<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">32<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">not
have education at one place. He has moved from one school to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">another.
He was admitted in school at Dehradun by respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">but
then removed within few months. In the month of June, 2009, the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child
has been admitted in some school at Chennai. As a matter of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">fact,
the minor child Adithya and respondent no. 6 could not be traced<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
their whereabouts could not be found for more than two years<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">since
the notice was issued by this Court. The respondent no. 6 and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
child has been moving from one State to another. The parents of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">respondent
no. 6 have filed an affidavit before this Court denying any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">knowledge
or awareness of the whereabouts of respondent no. 6 and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">minor
child Adithya ever since they left in September, 2007. In these<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">circumstances,
there has been no occasion for the child developing<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">roots
in this country. Moreover, the present habeas corpus petition<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">has
been filed by the petitioner promptly and without any delay, but<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">since
the respondent no. 6 has been moving from one State to<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">another
and her whereabouts were not known, the notice could not<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">be
served and child could not be produced for more than two years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23.
In a case such as the present one, we are satisfied that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">return
of minor Adithya to United States of America, for the time<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">being,
from where he has been removed and brought here would be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">33<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">in
the best interest of the child and also such order is justified in view<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the assurances given by the petitioner that he would bear all the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">traveling
expenses and make living arrangements for respondent no.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6 in
the United Sates of America till the necessary orders are passed<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">by
the competent court; that the petitioner would comply with the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">custody/parenting
rights as per consent order dated June 18, 2007 till<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">such
time as the competent court in United States of America takes a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">further
decision; that the petitioner will request that the warrants<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">against
respondent no. 6 be dropped; that the petitioner will not file or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">pursue
any criminal charges for violation by respondent no. 6 of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">consent
order in the United States of America and that if any<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">application
is filed by respondent no. 6 in the competent court in<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America, the petitioner shall cooperate in expeditious<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">hearing
of such application. The petitioner has also stated that he has<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">obtained
confirmation from Martha Hunt Elementary School, Murphy,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Texas,
75094, that minor son Adithya will be admitted to school<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">forthwith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24.
The learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 6 sought<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">to
raise an objection regarding the maintainability of habeas corpus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court but we<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">34<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">are
not persuaded to accept the same. Suffice it to say that in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case which have already<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">been
noticed above and the order that we intend to pass, invocation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 cannot be said to be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">inappropriate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25.
We record our appreciation for the work done by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerned
officers/officials of CBI in tracing the minor child Adithya<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">and
producing him in less than two months of the order passed by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">this
Court, although, the Police Officers and Officials of different<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
failed in tracing the child Adithya and respondent no. 6 for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">more
than two years. But for the earnest efforts on the part of the CBI<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">authorities,
it would not have been possible for this Court to hear and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">decide
this habeas corpus petition involving the sensitive issue<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">concerning
a child of seven years who is a foreign national.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26.
In the result and for the reasons stated, we pass the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">following
order :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(i)
The respondent no. 6 shall act as per the consent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">order
dated June 18, 2007 passed by the Family Court of the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">State
of New York till such time any further order is passed on<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">35<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
petition that may be moved by the parties henceforth and,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">accordingly,
she will take the child Adithya of her own to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America within fifteen days from today and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">report
to that court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ii)
The petitioner shall bear all the traveling expenses<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the respondent no. 6 and minor child Adithya and make<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">arrangements
for the residence of respondent no. 6 in the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">United
States of America till further orders are passed by the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">competent
court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iii)
The petitioner shall request the authorities that the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">warrants
against respondent no. 6 be dropped. He shall not file<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">or
pursue any criminal charges for violation by respondent no. 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">of
the consent order in the United States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iv)
The respondent no. 6 shall furnish her address and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">contact
number in India to the CBI authorities and also inform<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">them
in advance the date and flight details of her departure<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">along
with child Adithya for United States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(v)
In the event of respondent no. 6 not taking the child<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Adithya
of her own to United States of America within fifteen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">days
from today, child Adithya with his passport shall be<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">36<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> restored to the custody of the petitioner to
be taken to United<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">States
of America. The child will be a ward of the concerned<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">court
that passed the consent order dated June 18, 2007. It will<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">be
open to respondent no. 6 to move that court for a review of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
custody of the child, if so advised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(vi)
The parties shall bear their own costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">..................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">......J
(Tarun Chatterjee)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">...................<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">.....J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(R.
M. Lodha)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">........................J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Dr.
B.S. Chauhan)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">New
Delhi<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-66550474290400417152013-01-10T22:04:00.000-08:002013-01-10T22:04:40.127-08:00child custody to mother even father is good in financial <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Child Custody given to Mother
with visitation right to father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "Georgia","serif";">“Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the child's education is of paramount importance and
the father is spending good amount of money for providing him excellent
education, and the mother does not have the financial affluence as the
appellant claims to have. But that can be taken care of if father is asked to
pay the educational expenses of the child in addition to the maintenance being
paid to the respondent. But at the same time it cannot be overlooked that the
father needs to have visitation rights of the child.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 5099 OF 2007<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Gaurav
Nagpal ...Appellant Versus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Sumedha
Nagpal ....Respondent (With Criminal Appeal NO. 491 of 2006)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Dr.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
Learned District Judge, Gurgaon, had allowed the application filed by the
respondent-wife under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and <br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
Guardianship Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act') alongwith Section 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (in short `Guardian Act').<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2.
Matrimonial discords are on the rise at an alarming rate. The sanctity of
marriages is under cloud, which in a great way affects the society at large.
Individuals can in no way be segregated from the society to which they belong.
The cultural heritage of a country is greatly influenced by a pattern of
behaviour of individuals and more so in matters of matrimony. Home can be a
wonderful place to live. But continuous fights between the partners of a
marriage disturb the atmosphere at home and create havoc on the members of a
family. One does not need a mansion to lead a happy marital home. The
foundation of a happy home is love, sharing of joys and sorrows, and not in
that sense bricks and concrete. There should be cementing of hearts and not
cementing of floors and walls. Life is a series of awakening. The happiness
which brings enduring worth to life is not the superficial happiness that is
dependent on circumstances. Ultimately, in the fight between the partners, the
victims more often than not are the children. It is unfortunate that in their
fight more often on account of egoism the children suffer, more particularly
when the child is a girl. It is not uncommon to see that at the time of
negotiation of marriage, the boy's 2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">parents
shy away because the girl is from a broken family and/or the parents are
divorced. The child has practically no role in breaking of the marriage, but he
or she suffers. The marital discord sometimes reaches a stage where the parties
are unmindful of what psychological, mental and physical impact it has on
children. It is worse when there is a single child, be it a boy or a girl. The
case at hand is a classic example where the child has become the focus of
controversy. Bitter legal fights have been fought and the corridors of several
courts including the Supreme Court have been travelled by the parties. Efforts
have been made unsuccessfully to bring about conciliation between the parties.
The best way to make children good said a learned author is to make them happy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3. A
brief reference to the factual aspects leaving out the maize of unnecessary
facts would suffice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
parties got married on 14.10.1996 and the child from their wedlock was born on
15.11.1997. According to the appellant, respondent abandoned the child on
8.8.1999 but she filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Delhi High Court on
25.8.1999. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction. Respondent filed a Special Leave Petition against the High
Court's order dated 14.1.2000 and also 3<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">filed
a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short
the `Constitution'). This Court permitted interim custody of the 20 months old
child with the appellant. The respondent filed a maintenance petition before
the Delhi High Court and also a petition for guardianship before a learned
Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. The same was later withdrawn and the
petition was filed in the District Court, Gurgaon. Appellant filed his reply
opposing the application on the ground that the respondent had deserted the
child. By order dated 2.5.2002, learned Civil Judge dismissed the application
for interim custody holding that any disturbance by changing the custody of the
child would traumatize him and shall not be conducive to the welfare of the
child and it would affect the mental balance of the child who had developed
love and affection for his father and his family members. A Revision Petition
was filed by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court granted the
visitation rights to the respondent by order 30.9.2002 but continued the
interim custody with the appellant. The visitation rights fixed by the Court
were in the following terms:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(a) 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. on every last Saturday of the month. (b) For a week in the
aforesaid manner in summer vacations. 4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> (c) One day in Dussehra holidays (9 a.m. to 5
p.m. (d) One day in Diwali Holidays (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). A contempt petition was
filed for violation of the terms by the appellant. The learned District Judge,
Gurgaon allowed the petition of the respondent and granted custody of the child
to the respondent. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court against
the order dated 6.1.2007. The High Court passed an interim order staying the
order of custody to the respondent but continued the order with respect to
visitation rights. By order dated 13.7.2007 the appeal filed by the appellant
was dismissed. Though the initial order of the High Court was stayed,
subsequently by order dated 29.10.2007 the visitation rights were continued.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4.
According to the appellant, the order of the High Court is clearly wrong on
several counts. The order passed by the High Court dated 9.3.2005 convicting
the appellant for contempt of court has also been assailed in Criminal Appeal
No.491 of 2006. The Trial Court came to hold that since the child had remained
with the appellant for a period of 7 years, he appears to have made every
possible effort to obtain the custody of a minor. The learned District Judge
took note of the fact that taking of the 5<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child
from his father's custody may adversely affect the sentiments and upbringing of
the child, but at the same time the child should not be deprived the mother's
home.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5.
Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the court below had not
held that he suffers from any disability in his role as a father and,
therefore, there was no comprehensive reason for the Court to direct custody of
the child to be entrusted to the respondent. The fact that the respondent was
the mother cannot be the sole basis for allowing the petition. While
considering the prayer for the custody of the child, several factors including
the relationship between the parties and the minor are secondary. It was
submitted that the minor was abandoned when he was about one year and nine
months old. Thereafter, in the garb of seeking custody several rounds of
litigation were unleashed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6.
With reference to Section 6 of the Act it was submitted that the father was the
legal guardian and the welfare of the minor child lies with the appellant. He
has a large income and resides in a joint family where the minor is taken care
of by the appellant, his mother, brother and brother's wife and his three
nephews. The warmth of the joint family has led to an all 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">round
development of the child and by taking him away from those surroundings can
deprive him of love and affection. The appellant lives in a posh locality and
the house is built on nearly 3000 sq. yards whereas the respondent resides with
her parents in a two-bed room flat. Apart from that the appellant has a good
educational background and since the child has been residing for the last more
than seven years with him, the courts should not have directed handing over
custody to the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7. It
was further pointed out that the primary focus being the welfare of the child,
the respondent should have brought on record as to how with her meagre income
she would be able to provide good education to the child. It was pointed out
that the child is afraid of his mother and wrenching him from the custody of
the father would lead to irreparable mental trauma.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8. So
far as the contempt proceedings were concerned it was submitted that the
appellant is not a criminal and though certain cases have been lodged against
him they are related to some technical violations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9.
The respondent's stand on the other hand was that the appellant had shifted his
residence to Bahadurgarh by deception and fraud. From there the 7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">child
was snatched from her custody on 1.8.1999. Since that date she has approached
various courts to seek custody of the child and for redressal of her
grievances. The respondent got order relating to interim custody. For failure
to comply with the orders of interim custody, the appellant was convicted by
the High Court and sentenced to one month's imprisonment and though the order
of sentence has been stayed, the order of conviction still continues to be in
force. The appellant's conduct in disobeying the orders passed by the courts
discloses that he has no respect or any regard for the rule of law. It was
further submitted that the child's welfare cannot be weighed in terms of money,
facilities, area of a house or the financial might of either the father or the
mother. It was pointed out that respondent had no option but to reside with her
parents and is a teacher in Salwan Public School. Merely because she was
residing with the parents cannot disqualify her from looking after her child.
She may not be as financially sound as the appellant, but that alone cannot
disentitle her from the custody of the child. She has stated that she was
drawing a salary of Rs.13,000/-p.m. (which is likely to be substantially
increased) and was receiving Rs.25,000/- as maintenance pursuant to the order
passed by the Delhi High Court and she can look after the financial needs for
educating the child. She resides in Gulabi Bagh which is well located and
surrounded and there is a park 8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">nearby.
The colony has 8-10 parks and it is a better location where the child can be
well developed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent resides in an
area which is unsuitable to the minor child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
It is also pointed out that the appellant has no fixed residence. He shifted
from Delhi to Bahadurgarh and then Gurgaon and back to Delhi in a house in
Sainik farm where the appellant claims to reside. Same is owned by his brother.
It has been a deliberate attempt to poison the mind of the child. Negative
facts have been fed into the child's mind against the respondent. It was further
submitted that if sufficient time is given the child would overcome any tutored
prejudice. Though, there was a claim that the relatives would provide healthy
environment to the child, none of them stepped into the witness box and
affidavits filed much later cannot be a substitute for the evidence in Court.
The High Court took note of Section 13 of the Act which is the foundation for
the custody of the child. The welfare of the minor is of paramount
consideration. The High Court looking into the materials placed observed as
follows: &quot;In view of the facts, noticed herein before, the question
that exercises this Court's mind is should the child be permitted to stay with
a father, who inculcates fear and apprehension in the mind of minor, against
his mother and thwarts court orders with impunity. The answer to the above
questions, in my 9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> opinion, must be in the negative. The
appellant, cannot wish away his role, in the minor harboring such an irrational
fear towards the mother. I am conscious of the fact that directing the custody
of the child to the respondent, may result in a degree of trauma. However, the
daily trauma the child appears to undergo while being tutored against his
mother would be far in excess of the trauma likely to be faced while entrusting
to the respondent. The minor child must be allowed to grow up with a healthy
regard for both parents. A parent in this case, the appellant, who poisons the
minor's mind against the other parent cannot possibly be stated to act for the
welfare of the minor.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11.
It is submitted that the High Court was not oblivious of the financial status
of the respondent. The High Court also found that large area of accommodation
and financial affluence cannot be a determinative factor. Therefore, the High Court
did not find any scope for interference with the order of the court below.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the
stand taken before the High Court. It was additionally submitted that the
child's reluctance to go with the mother should have been duly considered by
the High Court. Apparently, that has not been done. 10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13.
Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/858575/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Mausami
Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli (JT</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>2008 (6) SC 634) wherein this Court on
12th May, 2008 dismissed the mother's appeal, according to appellant, on
identical facts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14.
The Respondent, who appeared in person, highlighted the stands taken by her
before the learned District Judge and the High Court. The main plank of
appellant's argument is to continue custody with the father. The appellant has
managed to retain the custody by flouting the order passed by this Court. It is
pointed out by the respondent that for flouting the orders of the Court the
appellant has been convicted for contempt of court which is the subject matter
of challenge in criminal appeal. It was not the first instance when the
appellant flouted the order. It is pointed out that the factual scenario in
Mausami Moitra's case (supra) was entirely different. In that case, courts
below had analysed the material to conclude that it would be desirable to give
custody to the father. The factual scenario is entirely different here.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15.
It is to be noticed as done at the threshold that in the present dispute the
child has become the victim.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16.
It is pointed out by the respondent that she was not aware that the appellant
was a divorcee. The first wife was ill treated by the appellant and his
relatives on account of alleged meagre dowry. She was eventually ousted from
the matrimonial home alongwith a minor child. Since the appellant demanded
custody of the child and threatened the respondent, information was lodged at
the Police Station. On 1.8.1999 while the respondent was attending to household
chores, the appellant whisked away their minor child and sent him to some
unknown place at Delhi. The respondent was bundled into a car and kept in
illegal confinement at the house of one Sh. Bal Kishan Dang from where she
escaped on 8.8.1999. She sent telegrams to various authorities and a formal
complaint was lodged with the Police Station, Sarai Rohilla alleging wrongful
confinement and kidnapping of the child. In the meanwhile, the respondent's
father lodged a complaint with the police at Bahadurgarh. The appellant was
arrested and produced before the Court at Bahadurgarh. An application was filed
before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, requesting the
court to hold an inquiry, as to the whereabouts of the minor child. The
Magistrate passed an order directing the appellant to produce the child on the
next date of hearing. However, as the respondent could not reach the court in
time, the 12<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Magistrate
granted bail to the appellant and declined the prayer for production of the
minor child. Thereafter, the respondent, filed an application for issuance of a
writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus before the High Court at Delhi. Despite
issuance of notice, the appellant failed to produce the child. Eventually on
11.1.2000, the petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The
respondent, thereafter, filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, as
also a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Both these petitions
were dismissed by this Court, directing the respondent, to avail her remedy
before the Guardian Court. The respondent, thereafter filed a petition under
Section 6 of the Act, praying for the custody of the minor child. The
respondent, prayed before the Trial Court that as she was the mother of a minor
child and as she did not suffer from any disability, the appellant be directed
to hand over the custody of the minor child. It was averred in the petition
that though the appellant claimed to be the owner of various companies, he had
committed various frauds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17.
The appellant played fraud with the respondent by concealing the fact that he
was earlier married to one Alka Nagpal and his marriage broke as he is supposed
to have similarly tortured and harassed his wife as was made 13<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">out
to the respondent. It is the respondent's case that as she was unable to bear
the physical and mental agony, Alka Nagpal committed suicide within six months
of her marriage. It is also pointed out that the criminal cases involving
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 343 and 109 IPC are
pending in the CBI Court, Patiala against the appellant and his family members.
It is also pointed out that the child was shifted from one school to another at
various places in Haryana and Delhi.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18.
It was pointed out that the conduct of the appellant was noted by the Local
Commissioner of Police in his report on 10.10.2003 who committed repeated
defaults in bringing the child on various dates. The High Court noted that fact
and came to a conclusion that the appellant had willfully disobeyed the orders
of this Court and had poisoned the mind of the child against the mother. It was
further noted that the child could only meet the mother with the help of a duty
Magistrate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19.
We shall first deal with law relating to custody in various countries. English
Law<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20.
In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 24, para 511 at page 217 it
has been stated;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;Where
in any proceedings before any court the custody or upbringing of a minor is in
question, then, in deciding that question, the court must regard the minor's
welfare as the first and paramount consideration, and may not take into
consideration whether from any other point of view the father's claim in
respect of that custody or upbringing is superior to that of the mother, or the
mother's claim is superior to that of the father.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It
has also been stated that if the minor is of any age to exercise a choice, the
court will take his wishes into consideration. (para 534; page 229).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21.
Sometimes, a writ of habeas corpus is sought for custody of a minor child. In
such cases also, the paramount consideration which is required to be kept in
view by a writ-Court is `welfare of the child'.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22.
In Habeas Corpus, Vol. I, page 581, Bailey states; &quot;The reputation of
the father may be as stainless as crystal; he may not be afflicted with the
slightest mental, moral or physical disqualifications from superintending the
general welfare of the infant; the mother may have been separated from him
without the shadow of a pretence of justification; and yet the interests 15<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> of the child may imperatively demand the
denial of the father's right and its continuance with the mother. The tender
age and precarious state of its health make the vigilance of the mother
indispensable to its proper care; for, not doubting that paternal anxiety would
seek for and obtain the best substitute which could be procured yet every
instinct of humanity unerringly proclaims that no substitute can supply the
place of her whose watchfulness over the sleeping cradle, or waking moments of
her offspring, is prompted by deeper and holier feeling than the most liberal
allowance of nurses' wages could possibly stimulate.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">23.
It is further observed that an incidental aspect, which has a bearing on the
question, may also be adverted to. In determining whether it will be for the
best interests of a child to grant its custody to the father or mother, the
Court may properly consult the child, if it has sufficient judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24.
In Mc Grath, Re, (1893) 1 Ch 143 : 62 LJ Ch 208, Lindley, L.J. observed;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
dominant matter for the consideration of the Court is the welfare of the child.
But the welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only nor merely
physical comfort. The word `welfare' must be taken in its widest sense. The
moral or religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its
physical well-being. Nor can the tie of affection be disregarded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">American
Law<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">25.
Law in the United States is also not different. In American Jurisprudence,
Second Edition, Vol. 39; para 31; page 34, it is stated; &quot;As a rule,
in the selection of a guardian of a minor, the best interest of the child is
the paramount consideration, to which even the rights of parents must sometimes
yield&quot;. (emphasis supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">In
para 148; pp.280-81; it is stated;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;Generally,
where the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose of determining
the right to custody of a child, the controversy does not involve the question
of personal freedom, because an infant is presumed to be in the custody of
someone until it attains its majority. The Court, in passing on the writ in a
child custody case, deals with a matter of an equitable nature, it is not bound
by any mere legal right of parent or guardian, but is to give his or her claim
to the custody of the child due weight as a claim founded on human nature and
generally equitable and just. Therefore, these cases are decided, not on the
legal right of the petitioner to be relieved from unlawful imprisonment or
detention, as in the case of an adult, but on the Court's view of the best
interests of those whose welfare requires that they be in custody of one person
or another; and hence, a court is not bound to deliver a child into the custody
of any claimant or of any person, but should, in the exercise of a sound discretion,
after careful consideration of the facts, leave it in such custody as its
welfare at the time appears to require. In short, the child's welfare is the
supreme consideration, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of its contending
parents, although the natural rights of the parents are entitled to
consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> An application by a parent, through the medium
of a habeas corpus proceeding, for custody of a child is addressed to the
discretion of the court, and custody may be withheld from the parent where it
is made clearly to appear that by reason of unfitness for the trust or of other
sufficient causes the permanent interests of the child would be sacrificed by a
change of custody. In determining whether it will be for the best interest of a
child to award its custody to the father or mother, the Court may properly
consult the child, if it has sufficient judgment&quot;.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">26.
In Howarth v. Northcott, 152 Conn 460 : 208 A 2nd 540 : 17 ALR 3rd 758; it was
stated;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;In
habeas corpus proceedings to determine child custody, the jurisdiction
exercised by the Court rests in such cases on its inherent equitable powers and
exerts the force of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its
infant ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result sought
to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of
equity&quot;.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It
was further observed;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;The
employment of the forms of habeas corpus in a child custody case is not for the
purpose of testing the legality of a confinement or restraint as contemplated
by the ancient common law writ, or by statute, but the primary purpose is to
furnish a means by which the court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion,
may determine what is best for the welfare of the child, and the decision is
reached by a consideration of the equities involved in the welfare of the
child, against 18<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> which the legal rights of no one, including
the parents, are allowed to militate&quot;.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">27. It
was also indicated that ordinarily, the basis for issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus is an illegal detention; but in the case of such a writ sued out for the
detention of a child, the law is concerned not so much with the illegality of
the detention as with the welfare of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">28.
The legal position in India follows the above doctrine. There are various
statutes which give legislative recognition to these well-established
principles. It would be appropriate if we examine some of the statutes dealing
with the situation. Guardians Act, consolidates and amends the law relating to
guardians and wards. Section 4 of the said Act defines
&quot;minor&quot; as a person who has not attained the age of majority.
&quot;Guardian&quot; means a person having the care of the person of a
minor or of his property, or of both his person and property.
&quot;Ward&quot; is defined as a minor for whose person or property or
both, there is a guardian. Chapter II (Sections 5 to 19 of Guardians Act)
relates to appointment and declaration of guardians. Section 7 thereof deals
with `power of the Court to make order as to guardianship' and reads as under:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> 7. Power of the Court to make order as to
guardianship.-(1) Where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor
that an order should be made--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(a)
appointing a guardian of his person or property, or both, or (b) declaring a
person to be such a guardian,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">the
Court may make an order accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(2)
An order under this section shall imply the removal of any guardian who has not
been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the
Court. (3) Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other instrument or
appointed or declared by the Court, an order under this section appointing or
declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not be made until
the powers of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have ceased under
the provisions of this Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">29.
Section 8 of the Guardians Act enumerates persons entitled to apply for an order
as to guardianship. Section 9 empowers the Court having jurisdiction to
entertain an application for guardianship. Sections 10 to 16 deal with
procedure and powers of Court. Section 17 is another material provision and may
be reproduced;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">&quot;17.
Matters to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian.-(1) In appointing
or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the
provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to
which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare
of the minor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> (2) In considering what will be for the
welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion
of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his
nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any
existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his
property. (3) If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the
Court may consider that preference. *****<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(5)
The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his
will.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">30.
Section 19 prohibits the Court from appointing guardians in certain cases.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Chapter
III (Sections 20 to 42) prescribes duties, rights and liabilities of guardians.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">31.
The Act is another equally important statute relating to minority and
guardianship among Hindus. Section 4 defines &quot;minor&quot; as a
person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. &quot;Guardian&quot;
means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or
of both his persons and property, and inter alia includes a natural guardian.
Section 2 of the Act declares that the provisions of the Act shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of 1890 Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">32.
Section 6 enacts as to who can be said to be a natural guardian. It reads thus;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6.
Natural guardians of a Hindu Minor.--The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in
respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property
(excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are-- (a)
in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl--the father, and after him, the
mother; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of
five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(b)
in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl--the
mother, and after her, the father. (c) in the case of a married girl--the
husband:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Provided
that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor
under the provisions of this section --<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(a)
if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(b)
if he has completely and finally renounced the world becoming a hermit
(vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Explanation.--In
this section, the expressions &quot;father&quot; and
&quot;mother&quot; do not include a step-father and a step- mother.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">33.
Section 8 enumerates powers of natural guardian. Section 13 is extremely
important provision and deals with welfare of a minor. The same may be quoted
in extenso;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">22<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> 13. Welfare of minor to be paramount
consideration. (1) In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian
of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount
consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(2)
No, person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of
this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if
the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the
welfare of the minor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">34.
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for custody of children and
declares that in any proceeding under the said Act, the Court could make, from
time to time, such interim orders as it might deem just and proper with respect
to custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with
their wishes, wherever possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">35.
The principles in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. In
determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child,
the paramount consideration is the `welfare of the child' and not rights of the
parents under a statute for the time being in force. 23<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">36.
The aforesaid statutory provisions came up for consideration before Courts in
India in several cases. Let us deal with few decisions wherein the courts have
applied the principles relating to grant of custody of minor children by taking
into account their interest and well-being as paramount consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">37.
In Saraswathibai Shripad v. Shripad Vasanji, ILR 1941 Bom 455 : AIR 1941 Bom
103; the High Court of Bombay stated; &quot;It is not the welfare of the
father, nor the welfare of the mother that is the paramount consideration for
the Court. It is the welfare of the minor and the minor alone which is the
paramount consideration.&quot;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(emphasis
supplied)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">38.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/270778/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">In Rosy
Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1973)
1 SCC 840, this Court held that object and purpose of 1890 Act is not merely
physical custody of the minor but due protection of the rights of ward's
health, maintenance and education. The power and duty of the Court under the Act
is the welfare of minor. In considering the question of welfare of minor, due
regard has of course to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian
but if the custody of the father cannot promote the welfare of the children, he
may be refused such guardianship.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">24<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">39.
Again, in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1304490/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Thrity
Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1982) 2 SCC 544, this Court
reiterated that the only consideration of the Court in deciding the question of
custody of minor should be the welfare and interest of the minor. And it is the
special duty and responsibility of the Court. Mature thinking is indeed
necessary in such situation to decide what will enure to the benefit and
welfare of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">40.
Merely because there is no defect in his personal care and his attachment for
his children--which every normal parent has, he would not be granted custody.
Simply because the father loves his children and is not shown to be otherwise
undesirable does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the welfare of the
children would be better promoted by granting their custody to him. Children
are not mere chattels nor are they toys for their parents. Absolute right of
parents over the destinies and the lives of their children, in the modern
changed social conditions must yield to the considerations of their welfare as
human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful
members of the society and the guardian court in case of a dispute between the
mother and the father, is expected to strike a just and proper balance between
the 25<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">requirements
of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents
over them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">41.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/768055/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">In
Surinder Kaur Sandhu (Smt.) v. Harbax Singh Sandhu,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1984) 3 SCC 698, this Court held that
Section 6 of the Act constitutes father as a natural guardian of a minor son.
But that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is
conducive to the welfare of the minor. [See also<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/271434/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Elizabeth
Dinshaw (Mrs.) v. Arvand M. Dinshaw,</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1987) 1 SCC 42;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317420/"><span style="color: #1100cc;">Chandrakala
Menon (Mrs.) v. Vipin Menon (Capt),</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(1993) 2 SCC 6].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">42.
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each
time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue
on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding
those issues. The court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it
has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As
observed recently in Mousami Moitra Ganguli's case (supra), the Court has to
due weightage to the child's ordinary contentment, health, education,
intellectual development and favourable surroundings but over and above
physical comforts, the moral and ethical 26<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">values
have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">43. The
word `welfare' used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and
must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child
must also weigh with the Court as well as its physical well being. Though the
provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or
guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in
the way of the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such
cases.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">44.
The trump card in appellants' argument is that the child is living since long
with the father. The argument is attractive. But the same overlooks a very
significant factor. By flouting various orders, leading even to initiation of
contempt proceedings, the appellant has managed to keep custody of the child.
He can not be a beneficiary of his own wrongs. The High Court has referred to
these aspects in detail in the impugned judgments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">45.
The conclusions arrived at and reasons indicated by the High Court to grant
custody to the mother does not in our view suffer from any infirmity. 27<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It is
true that taking the child out of the father's custody may cause some problems,
but that is bound to be neutralized.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">46.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the child's education is of
paramount importance and the father is spending good amount of money for
providing him excellent education, and the mother does not have the financial
affluence as the appellant claims to have. But that can be taken care of if
father is asked to pay the educational expenses of the child in addition to the
maintenance being paid to the respondent. But at the same time it cannot be
overlooked that the father needs to have visitation rights of the child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">47.
In partial modification of the order passed by the District Judge and the High
Court, we direct that the visitation rights shall be in the following terms:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(1)
During long holidays/vacations covering more than two weeks the child will be
allowed to be in the company of the father for a period of seven days.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">28<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> (2) The period shall be fixed by the father
after due intimation to the mother who shall permit the child to go with the
father for the aforesaid period.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(3)
For twice every month preferably on Saturday or Sunday or a festival day,
mother shall allow the child to visit the father from morning to evening.
Father shall take the child and leave him back at the mother's place on such
days.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">48.
The appeal is dismissed subject to aforesaid modifications. Costs fixed at
Rs.25,000/-.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2006<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">49.
Though we find that the order of the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity but taking into account the fact that we have dismissed the connected
Civil appeal relating to the custody of the child, while upholding the finding
of guilt for disobeying the Court's order and committing contempt of Court, we
restrict the sentence to the period already undergone. 29<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">50.
Before saying omega, we propose to make some general observations. It is a
disturbing phenomenon that large number of cases are flooding the courts
relating to divorce or judicial separation. An apprehension is gaining ground
that the provisions relating to divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1950 (in
short the `Marriage Act') has led to such a situation. In other words, the
feeling is that the statute is facilitating breaking of homes rather than
saving them. This may be too wide a view because actions are suspect. But that
does not make the section invalid. Actions may be bad, but not the Section. The
provisions relating to divorce categorise situations in which a decree for
divorce can be sought for. Merely because such a course is available to be
adopted, should not normally provide incentive to persons to seek divorce,
unless the marriage has irretrievably broken. Effort should be to bring about
conciliation to bridge the communication gap which lead to such undesirable
proceedings. People rushing to courts for breaking up of marriage should come
as a last resort, and unless it has an inevitable result, courts should try to
bring about conciliation. The emphasis should be on saving marriage and not
breaking it. As noted above, this is more important in cases where the children
bear the brunt of dissolution of marriage. 30<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">50.
One must not lose faith in humanity. It is an ocean; if a few drops of the
ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. If nothing ever went wrong in
one's life, he or she would never have a chance to grow stronger. One should
never forget that today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness
and tomorrow a vision of hope. Marital happiness depends upon mutual trust,
respect and understanding. A home should not be an arena for ego clashes and misunderstandings.
There should be physical and mental union. Marriage is something, Ibsen said in
&quot;The League of Youth&quot; you have to give your whole mind to. If
marriages are made in Heaven as Tennyson said in Ayloner's Field, why make matrimonial
home hell is a big question.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">51.
The appeals are dismissed subject to the aforesaid modifications.
................................J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Dr.
ARIJIT PASAYAT)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">................................J.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(G.S.
SINGHVI)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">New
Delhi,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-28060187581340303722013-01-10T21:53:00.000-08:002013-01-10T21:53:30.399-08:00custody of children to father<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Custody of Child can be given to father.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "Georgia","serif";">“We are sure that the
appellant- father, who is a member of Indian Administrative Service and is a
well groomed person, with the help of his father, who was also a professor,
will be able to take very good care of the children. Their education would not
be adversely affected even in Jammu and Kashmir as it would be possible for the
appellant-father to get them educated in a good school in Jammu. We do not
believe that the children would remain in company of servants as alleged by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-mother. Father of the appellant
i.e. the grandfather of the children would also be in a position to look after
the children and infuse good cultural values into them. Normally, grandparents
can spare more time with their grand children and especially company of well
educated grandparents would not only help the children in their studies but
would also help them to imbibe cultural and moral values and good manners.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 4308 OF 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Arising
out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13254 of 2011)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Shaleen
Kabra Appellant<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Vs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Shiwani
Kabra Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">With<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">CIVIL
APPEAL NO.4309 OF 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(Arising
out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15819 of 2011)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">ANIL
R. DAVE, J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">1.
Leave granted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">2.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated the 21st of
February, 2011 in CM(M) 1018 of 2010, these appeals have been filed by the
parties before the High Court, who are parents of two children, whose custody
is the subject matter of these appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">3. As
the impugned order is challenged in both these appeals, both the appeals were
heard together and they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of
convenience, parties to the litigation have been referred to hereinbelow as
arrayed in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave petition No. 13254 of
2011.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">4.
The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.02.1994.
From the wedlock, two sons were born, who are approximately 15 and 9 years old.
The appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 10.04.2007,
and have been involved in various litigations since then, including a petition
for divorce under Section 13(1)(i) &amp; 1A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
filed by the appellant- father and also proceedings under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated by the respondent-mother. The
appellant, who is an IAS officer, stationed at Jammu at present, had sought
certain modifications in the arrangement of custody of the children, and also
permission to take transfer certificates of the children from Delhi and
complete their admission in a school in Jammu, and in this respect, moved
applications dated 25.05.2010 and 22.06.2010 before the Additional District
Judge. The Learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 19.07.2010 was
pleased to allow the applications moved by the appellant- father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">5.
Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned judgment delivered by the Trial Court,
the respondent preferred CM(M) No. 1018 of 2010 before the High Court. By
virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the petition
filed by the respondent whereby the respondent was permitted to have custody of
the younger son, whereas the appellant was to have custody of the elder son.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">6.
While coming to the above conclusion, the High Court has cited various
decisions in support of the contention that while deciding the issue about
custody of children in a matrimonial dispute, the paramount consideration is
that of welfare of the child. Thereafter, on the basis of interaction with the
children in the Chambers, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the
elder son had a strong desire to stay with the appellant-father. He also found
that there was also an admission by the respondent-mother that she would not be
able to adequately handle the educational needs of the elder son without
tutors. For the aforestated reasons, the learned Single Judge ordered that
custody of the elder son should remain with the appellant-father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">7. In
the case of the younger son, the learned Single Judge observed that he, being
of a very tender age, was incapable of forming a definite preference as to with
whom he wanted to stay. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge ordered
that the custody of the younger son should be given to the respondent-mother,
as she would be in a better position to understand the needs of such a young
child. On this basis, the custody of the younger son was directed to remain
with the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">8.
The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding to the effect that both the
children appeared to be very happy in the company of each other as there was a
strong bonding between them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">9.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, both the parties have come before this
Court vide the present appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">10.
We heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also spoke to the children at
length.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">11.
The counsel appearing for the appellant-father, at the outset, submitted that
the High Court ought not to have directed separation of two children, in view
of the close relationship between them and he further submitted that there
could be disastrous effect of such a separation on them. Thereafter, the
learned counsel made further submissions about the poor academic performance of
the younger son while in the custody of the respondent-mother, and also
regarding the alleged adulterous conduct of the respondent-mother, which was
said to have a severe adverse effect on the children. The learned counsel
further added that the father of the appellant, i.e. grand father of the
children, is staying with the appellant and he, being a very educated person,
would be in a position to take good care of the children. On these grounds
inter alia, the learned counsel argued that both the children ought not to have
been separated, and that custody ought to have been granted to the
appellant-father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">12.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- mother
submitted that looking to the service condition and status of the appellant-father,
occupying a stressful position in the state of Jammu &amp; Kashmir, he
would not have sufficient time to give adequate attention to the children and
if custody of the children is given to him, the children would be taken care of
only by servants and that would not be in the interest of the children.
Further, the learned counsel argued that as the children were already in a very
good school in Delhi, it would not be just and proper to move them to another
school in Jammu &amp; Kashmir which might be of an inferior standard. For
the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel argued that custody of even the
elder son ought to have been granted to the respondent-mother.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">13.
On hearing the learned counsel and also upon talking at length with the children,
we find force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant- father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">14.
Upon speaking to the children personally, we also found that they are indeed
very much attached to each other. This fact was also noted by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment, and is also admitted
by both the parties in their respective written submissions. Looking to the
overall peculiar circumstances of the case, it is our view that the welfare of
both the children would be best served if they remain together. In our view it
would not be just and proper to separate both brothers, who are admittedly very
close to each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">15.
If we are of the view that both the brothers should not be separated and should
be kept together, the question would be as to who should be given custody of
the children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">16.
We are of the view that the children should be with the appellant- father. The
respondent-mother is not in a position to look after the educational need of
the elder son and as we do not desire to separate both the brothers, in our
opinion, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, it would be in the interest
of the children that they stay with the appellant-father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">17.
We are sure that the appellant- father, who is a member of Indian
Administrative Service and is a well groomed person, with the help of his
father, who was also a professor, will be able to take very good care of the
children. Their education would not be adversely affected even in Jammu and
Kashmir as it would be possible for the appellant-father to get them educated
in a good school in Jammu. We do not believe that the children would remain in
company of servants as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-mother. Father of the appellant i.e. the grandfather of the children
would also be in a position to look after the children and infuse good cultural
values into them. Normally, grandparents can spare more time with their grand
children and especially company of well educated grandparents would not only
help the children in their studies but would also help them to imbibe cultural
and moral values and good manners.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">18.
So as to see that the respondent-mother is also not kept away from the
children, she shall have a right to visit the children atleast once in a month.
The appellant –father shall make arrangements for A.C. First Class railway
ticket for the respondent-mother or shall pay the railway fare to her so as to
visit the children once in a month at a weekend and the appellant-father shall
also make arrangements for stay of the respondent-mother either at his own
residence, if the respondent-mother agrees to that, otherwise the
appellant-father shall make arrangements for suitable accommodation for the
respondent-mother when she comes to Jammu to visit the children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">19.
During the period of vacation exceeding two weeks, the appellant-father shall
send the children to Delhi so that the children can stay with the
respondent-mother atleast for three days. We are sure that the appellant and
the respondent shall determine the modalities as to during which portion of the
vacation, the children should visit the respondent-mother as almost both the
parents are interested in having the company of the children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">20.
For the aforestated reasons and looking to the peculiar facts of the case, we
quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and restore the
order of the trial court, subject to modification of conditions-arrangements,
recorded hereinabove. The custody of both the children shall be given to the appellant-father
before 15th May, 2012 and the arrangements with regard to visit of the children
etc. shall take effect from 1st June, 2012, the respondent-mother shall do the
needful to send the younger son to the residence of the appellant-father before
15th May, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">21.
The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">…………………………J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(D.K.
JAIN)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">…………………………J<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ANIL
R. DAVE)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 18.25pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">NEW
DELHI<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-23979656835795453342011-05-24T22:04:00.001-07:002012-10-23T21:30:12.617-07:00Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<br /><br /><br />An Act to amend and codify certain parts of the law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows:-<br />1 . Short title and extent.- (1) This Act may be called the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu Kashmir and applies to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories. 2 . Act to be supplemental to Act 8 of 1890.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not, save as hereinafter expressly provided, in derogation of, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890). 3 . Application of Act.- (1) This Act applies- (a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj. (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and (c) to any person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. Explanation.- The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:- (i) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion; (ii) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhists, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged; and (iii) any person who is convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.<br />(3) The expression 'Hindu' in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is nevertheless, a person to whom this Act, applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section. 4 . Definitions.- In this Act,- (a) "minor" means a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years; (b) "major" means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes- (i) a natural guardian, (ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor's father or mother, (iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and (iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any court of wards; (c) "natural guardian" means any of the guardians mentioned in section 6. 5 . Over-riding effect of Act.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,- (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. 6 . Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.- The natural guardians of a Hindu, minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are- (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl-the mother, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl-the husband; Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section- (a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or<br />(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi) Explanation.- In this section, the expressions 'father' and 'mother' do not include a step-father and a step-mother. 7 . Natural guardianship of adopted son.- The natural guardianship of an adopted son who is a minor passes, on adoption, to the adoptive father and after him to the adoptive mother. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. (4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. (5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining the permission of the court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of the court under section 29 of that Act, and in particular- (a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deemed to be proceedings under that Act within the meaning of section 4A thereof. (b) the court shall observe the procedure and have the powers specified in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and (c) an appeal lie from an order of the court refusing permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) of this section to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of that court. (6) In this section, "Court" means the city civil court or a district court or a court empowered under section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), within the<br />local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate. 9 . Testamentary guardians and their powers.- (1) A Hindu father entitled to act as the natural guardian of his minor legitimate children may, by will appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor's person or in respect of the minor's property (other than the undivided interest referred to in section 12) or in respect of both. (2) An appointment made under sub-section (1) shall have not effect if the father predeceases the mother, but shall revive if the mother dies without appointing, by will, any person as guardian. (3) A Hindu widow entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor legitimate children, and a Hindu mother entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor legitimate children by reason of the fact that the father has become disentitled to act as such, may, by will, appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor's person or in respect of the minor's property (other than the undivided interest referred to in section 12) or in respect of both. (4) A Hindu mother entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor illegitimate children may; by will appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor's person or in respect of the minor's property or in respect of both. (5) The guardian so appointed by will has the right to act as the minor's guardian after the death of the minor's father or mother, as the case may be, and to exercise all the rights of a natural guardian under this Act to such extent and subject to such restrictions, if any, as are specified in this Act and in the will. (6) The right of the guardian so appointed by will shall, where the minor is a girl, cease on her marriage. 10 . Incapacity of minor to act as guardian of property.- A minor shall be incompetent to act as guardian of the property of any minor. 11 . De facto guardian not to deal with minors property.- After the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor. 12 . Guardian not to be appointed for minors undivided interest in joint family property.- Where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property and the property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest: Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of a High Court the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration.<br />13 . Welfare of minor to be paramount consideration.- (1) In the appointment of declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor.V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7088422438491035731.post-36242699659832905842011-05-24T21:44:00.001-07:002012-03-23T11:24:19.493-07:00Child Custody Order/Decree Passed by Foreign Court Validity in India:Recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts(USA) in case of child custody.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of Indian courts is not barred while dealing with a case of custody of a child removed by a parent from a foreign country to India in contravention of the orders of the court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Justice Thakur said: “Recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts remains an eternal dilemma in as much as whenever called upon to do so. Courts in this country are bound to determine the validity of such decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Cr.PC 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002.”<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> REPORTABLE<br /><br /><br /> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<br /><br /><br /> CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION<br /><br /><br /> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4435 OF 2011<br /><br /> (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9220 of 2010)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Ruchi Majoo ...Appellant<br /><br /><br /> Versus<br /><br /><br />Sanjeev Majoo ...Respondents<br /><br /><br /> With<br /><br /><br /> CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2011<br /><br /> (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10362 of 2010)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> J U D G M E N T<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />T.S. THAKUR, J.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Leave granted.<br /><br /><br /> Conflict of laws and jurisdictions in the realm of private <br /><br /><br />international law is a phenomenon that has assumed greater <br /><br /> <br />dimensions with the spread of Indian diasporas across the <br /><br /><br />globe. A large number of our young and enterprising <br /><br /><br />countrymen are today looking for opportunities abroad. <br /><br /><br />While intellectual content and technical skills of these <br /><br /><br />youngster find them lucrative jobs in distant lands, complete <br /><br /><br />assimilation with the culture, the ways of life and the social <br /><br /><br />values prevalent in such countries do not come easy. The <br /><br /><br />result is that in very many cases incompatibility of <br /><br /><br />temperament apart, diversity of backgrounds and inability to <br /><br /><br />accept the changed lifestyle often lead to matrimonial <br /><br /><br />discord that inevitably forces one or the other party to seek <br /><br /><br />redress within the legal system of the country which they <br /><br /><br />have adopted in pursuit of their dreams. Experience has also <br /><br /><br />shown that in a large number of cases one of the parties <br /><br /><br />may return to the country of his or her origin for family <br /><br /><br />support, shelter and stability. Unresolved disputes in such <br /><br /><br />situations lead to legal proceedings in the country of origin <br /><br /><br />as well as in the adoptive country. Once that happens issues <br /><br /><br /><br /> 2<br /><br /> <br />touching the jurisdiction of the courts examining the same <br /><br /><br />as also comity of nations are thrown up for adjudication.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The present happens to be one such case where legal <br /><br /><br />proceedings have engaged the parties in a bitter battle for <br /><br /><br />the custody of their only child Kush, aged about 11 years <br /><br /><br />born in America hence a citizen of that country by birth. <br /><br /><br />These proceedings included an action filed by the father-<br /><br /><br />respondent in this appeal, before the American Court <br /><br /><br />seeking divorce from the respondent-wife and also custody <br /><br /><br />of master Kush. An order passed by the Superior court of <br /><br /><br />California, County of Ventura in America eventually led to <br /><br /><br />the issue of a red corner notice based on allegations of child <br /><br /><br />abduction levelled against the mother who like the father of <br /><br /><br />the minor child is a person of Indian origin currently living <br /><br /><br />with her parents in Delhi. The mother took refuge under an <br /><br /><br />order dated 4th April, 2009 passed by the Addl. District Court <br /><br /><br />at Delhi in a petition filed under Sections 7, 8, 10, 11 of the <br /><br /><br /><br /> 3<br /><br /> <br />Guardians and Wards Act granting interim custody of the <br /><br /><br />minor to her. Aggrieved by the said order the father of the <br /><br /><br />minor filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of <br /><br /><br />India before the High Court of Delhi. By the order impugned <br /><br /><br />in this appeal the High Court allowed that petition, set aside <br /><br /><br />the order passed by the District Court and dismissed the <br /><br /><br />custody case filed by the mother primarily on the ground <br /><br /><br />that the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the <br /><br /><br />same as the minor was not ordinarily residing at Delhi - a <br /><br /><br />condition precedent for the Delhi Court to exercise <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction. The High Court further held that all issues <br /><br /><br />relating to the custody of child ought to be agitated and <br /><br /><br />decided by the Court in America not only because that Court <br /><br /><br />had already passed an order to that effect in favour of the <br /><br /><br />father, but also because all the three parties namely, the <br /><br /><br />parents of the minor and the minor himself were American <br /><br /><br />citizens. The High Court buttressed its decision on the <br /><br /><br />principle of comity of courts and certain observations made <br /><br /><br /><br /> 4<br /><br /> <br />by this Court in some of the decided cases to which we shall <br /><br /><br />presently refer. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Three questions fall for determination in the above <br /><br /><br />backdrop. These are (i) Whether the High Court was justified <br /><br /><br />in dismissing the petition for custody of the minor on the <br /><br /><br />ground that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to <br /><br /><br />entertain the same, (ii) Whether the High Court was right in <br /><br /><br />declining exercise of jurisdiction on the principle of comity of <br /><br /><br />Courts and (iii) Whether the order granting interim custody <br /><br /><br />to the mother of the minor calls for any modification in <br /><br /><br />terms of grant of visitation rights to the father pending <br /><br /><br />disposal of the petition by the trial court. We shall deal with <br /><br /><br />the questions ad seriatim:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Re: Question No.1<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 5<br /><br /> <br /> There is no gainsaying that any challenge to the <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction of the court will have to be seen in the context of <br /><br /><br />the averments made in the pleadings of the parties and the <br /><br /><br />requirement of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, <br /><br /><br />1890. A closer look at the pleadings of the parties is, <br /><br /><br />therefore, necessary before we advert to the legal <br /><br /><br />requirement that must be satisfied for the Court to exercise <br /><br /><br />its powers under the Act mentioned above. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The appellant-mother had in her petition filed under the <br /><br /><br />Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 invoked the jurisdiction of <br /><br /><br />the Court at Delhi, on the assertion that the minor was, on <br /><br /><br />the date of the presentation of the petition for custody <br /><br /><br />ordinarily residing at 73 Anand Lok, August Kranti Marg, <br /><br /><br />New Delhi. The petition enumerated at length the alleged <br /><br /><br />acts of mental and physical cruelty of the respondent- <br /><br /><br />husband towards the appellant, including his alleged <br /><br /><br />addiction to pornographic films, internet sex and adulterous <br /><br /><br /><br /> 6<br /><br /> <br />behavior during the couple's stay in America. It traced the <br /><br /><br />sequence of events that brought them to India for a vacation <br /><br /><br />and the alleged misdemeanor of the respondent that led to <br /><br /><br />the appellant taking a decision to past company and to stay <br /><br /><br />back in India instead of returning to United States as <br /><br /><br />originally planned. In para (xxxviii) of the petition, the <br /><br /><br />appellant said :<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "That the petitioner in no certain terms told the <br /><br /> respondent that considering his past conduct which was <br /><br /> cruel, inhuman and insulting as well as humiliating, the <br /><br /> petitioner has no plans to be with the respondent and <br /><br /> wanted to stay away from him. The petitioner even <br /><br /> proposed that since there was no (sic) possibility for <br /><br /> them to stay together as husband and wife and as a <br /><br /> result of which the petitioner has decided to settle in <br /><br /> India for the time being, therefore some interim <br /><br /> arrangement could be worked out. The arrangement <br /><br /> which was proposed by the petitioner was that the <br /><br /> petitioner will stay with her son for the time being in <br /><br /> India and make best arrangements for his schooling. <br /><br /> The petitioner had also conveyed to the respondent <br /><br /> that since he wanted to have visitation rights, <br /><br /> therefore, he must also contribute towards the <br /><br /> upbringing of the child in India. It was further <br /><br /> suggested that some cooling off period should be there <br /><br /> so that the matrimonial disputes could be sorted out <br /><br /> subsequently."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 7<br /><br /> <br /> The appellant further alleged that she had informed the <br /><br /><br />respondent about a petition under the Guardian and Wards <br /><br /><br />Act being ready for presentation before the Guardian Court <br /><br /><br />at Delhi, whereupon the respondent is alleged to have <br /><br /><br />agreed to the appellant staying back in Delhi to explore <br /><br /><br />career options and to the minor continuing to stay with her. <br /><br /><br />The respondent eventually returned to America around 20th <br /><br /><br />July, 2008, whereafter he is alleged to have started <br /><br /><br />threatening the appellant that unless the later returned to <br /><br /><br />America with the minor, he would have the child removed <br /><br /><br />and put in the custody of the respondent's parents at <br /><br /><br />Udaipur. Apprehending that the respondent may involve the <br /><br /><br />appellant in some false litigation in America and asserting <br /><br /><br />that she was fit to be given the custody of the minor being <br /><br /><br />his mother and natural guardian, the appellant sought the <br /><br /><br />intervention of this Court and her appointment as sole <br /><br /><br />guardian of the minor.<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> 8<br /><br /> <br /> Shortly after the presentation of the main petition, an <br /><br /><br />application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act <br /><br /><br />read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed <br /><br /><br />by the appellant praying for an ex-parte interim order <br /><br /><br />restraining the respondent and/or any one on his behalf <br /><br /><br />from taking away and/or physically removing the minor from <br /><br /><br />her custody and for an order granting interim custody of the <br /><br /><br />minor to the appellant till further orders. The application set <br /><br /><br />out the circumstances in brief that compelled the appellant <br /><br /><br />to seek urgent interim directions from the court and referred <br /><br /><br />to an e-mail received from the father of the minor by the <br /><br /><br />Delhi Public School (International) at R.K. Puram, where the <br /><br /><br />minor is studying, accusing the mother of abducting the <br /><br /><br />minor child and asking the school authorities to refuse <br /><br /><br />admission to him. The application also referred to an e-mail <br /><br /><br />which the Principal of the school had in turn sent to the <br /><br /><br />appellant and the order which the US Court had passed <br /><br /><br />granting custody of minor child to the respondent. The <br /><br /><br /><br /> 9<br /><br /> <br />appellant alleged that the US Court had no jurisdiction in the <br /><br /><br />matter and that the order passed by that Court was liable to <br /><br /><br />be ignored. On the presentation of the above application the <br /><br /><br />Guardian Court passed an ex-parte interim order on 16th <br /><br /><br />September, 2008 directing that the respondent shall not <br /><br /><br />interfere with the appellant's custody of the minor child till <br /><br /><br />the next date of hearing. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The respondent entered appearance in the above <br /><br /><br />proceedings and filed an application for dismissal of the <br /><br /><br />petition on the ground that the court at Delhi had no <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the application the <br /><br /><br />respondent denied all the allegations and averments <br /><br /><br />suggesting habitual internet sex, womanizing, dowry <br /><br /><br />demand and sexual or behavioural perversity alleged against <br /><br /><br />him. The respondent also alleged that the family had <br /><br /><br />planned a vacation-cum-family visit to India and booked <br /><br /><br />return air tickets to be in America on 20th July, 2008. The <br /><br /><br /><br /> 10<br /><br /> <br />respondent's version was that the appellant along with the <br /><br /><br />respondent and their minor son, Kush had stayed with the <br /><br /><br />parents of the appellant at Delhi till 5th July, 2008. <br /><br /><br />Thereafter, they were supposed to visit Udaipur but since <br /><br /><br />the appellant insisted that she would stay at Delhi and <br /><br /><br />assured to send Kush after sometime to Udaipur, the <br /><br /><br />respondent left for Udaipur where he received a legal notice <br /><br /><br />on behalf of the appellant making false and imaginary <br /><br /><br />allegations. On receipt of the notice the respondent returned <br /><br /><br />to Delhi to sort out the matter. During the mediation the <br /><br /><br />respondent was allegedly subjected to enormous cruelty, <br /><br /><br />pressure and threat of proceedings under Section 498A IPC <br /><br /><br />so as to obstruct his departure scheduled on 20th July, 2008. <br /><br /><br />The respondent alleged that since any delay in his departure <br /><br /><br />could cost him a comfortable job in United States, he felt <br /><br /><br />coerced to put in writing a tentative arrangement on the <br /><br /><br />ground of appellant trying "career option of Dental medicine <br /><br /><br />at Delhi" and master Kush being allowed to study at Delhi <br /><br /><br /><br /> 11<br /><br /> <br />for the year 2008. This letter was, according to the <br /><br /><br />respondent, written under deceit, pressure, threat and <br /><br /><br />coercion. At any rate the letter constituted his consent to an <br /><br /><br />arrangement, which according to him stood withdrawn <br /><br /><br />because of his subsequent conduct. It was alleged that <br /><br /><br />neither the appellant nor Kush could be ordinarily resident of <br /><br /><br />Delhi so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi Court. <br /><br /><br />Several other allegations were also made in the application <br /><br /><br />including the assertion that the interim order of custody and <br /><br /><br />summons issued by the Superior Court of California, County <br /><br /><br />of Ventura were served by e-mail on the appellant as also on <br /><br /><br />Advocate, Mr. Purbali Bora despite which the appellant <br /><br /><br />avoided personal service of the summon on the false pretext <br /><br /><br />that she did not stay at 73 Anand Lok, New Delhi. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> It was, according to the respondent, curious that <br /><br /><br />instead of returning to USA to submit to the jurisdiction of <br /><br /><br />competent court at the place where both the petitioner and <br /><br /><br /><br /> 12<br /><br /> <br />respondent have a house to reside, jobs to work and social <br /><br /><br />roots and where Kush also normally resided, has friends and <br /><br /><br />school, the appellant wife had persisted to stay in India and <br /><br /><br />approach and seek legal redress. It was further stated that <br /><br /><br />the proceedings initiated by the appellant on or about 28th <br /><br /><br />August, 2008, with allegations and averments that were ex-<br /><br /><br />facie false and exaggerated, were not maintainable in view <br /><br /><br />of the proceedings before the Court in America and the <br /><br /><br />order passed therein. It was also alleged that in terms of <br /><br /><br />the protective custody warrant order issued on 9th <br /><br /><br />September, 2008, by the Superior Court of California, <br /><br /><br />County of Ventura, the appellant had been directed to <br /><br /><br />appear before the US Courts which the appellant was <br /><br /><br />evading to obey and that despite having information about <br /><br /><br />the proceedings in the US Court she had obtained an ex-<br /><br /><br />parte order without informing the respondent in advance.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 13<br /><br /> <br /> The respondent also enumerated the circumstances <br /><br /><br />which according to him demonstrated that he is more <br /><br /><br />suitable to get the custody of Master Kush in comparison to <br /><br /><br />the appellant-mother of the child. The respondent husband <br /><br /><br />accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the <br /><br /><br />appellant-wife and vacation of the ad-interim order dated 4th <br /><br /><br />April, 2009 passed by the Guardian Court at Delhi. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The Guardian and Wards Court upon consideration of <br /><br /><br />the matter dismissed the application filed by the respondent <br /><br /><br />holding that the material on record sufficiently showed that <br /><br /><br />the respondent-husband had consented to the arrangement <br /><br /><br />whereby the appellant-wife was to continue living in Delhi in <br /><br /><br />order to explore career options in dental medicine and that <br /><br /><br />the minor was to remain in the custody of his mother and <br /><br /><br />was to be admitted to a School in Delhi. The Court further <br /><br /><br />held that since there were serious allegations regarding the <br /><br /><br />conduct of the respondent-husband and his habits, the <br /><br /><br /><br /> 14<br /><br /> <br />question whether the interest of minor would be served <br /><br /><br />better by his mother as a guardian had to be looked into. It <br /><br /><br />is in the light of the above averments that the question <br /><br /><br />whether the Courts at Delhi have the jurisdiction to entertain <br /><br /><br />a petition for custody of the minor shall have to be <br /><br /><br />answered.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 makes <br /><br /><br />a specific provision as regards the jurisdiction of the Court to <br /><br /><br />entertain a claim for grant of custody of a minor. While sub- <br /><br /><br />Section (1) of Section 9 identifies the court competent to <br /><br /><br />pass an order for the custody of the persons of the minor, <br /><br /><br />sub-sections (2) & (3) thereof deal with courts that can be <br /><br /><br />approached for guardianship of the property owned by the <br /><br /><br />minor. Section 9(1) alone is, therefore, relevant for our <br /><br /><br />purpose. It says :<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain <br /><br /> application - (1) If the application is with respect to <br /><br /> the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be <br /><br /> 15<br /><br /> <br /> made to the District Court having Jurisdiction in the <br /><br /> place where the minor ordinarily resides."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> It is evident from a bare reading of the above that the <br /><br /><br />solitary test for determining the jurisdiction of the court <br /><br /><br />under Section 9 of the Act is the `ordinary residence' of the <br /><br /><br />minor. The expression used is "Where the minor ordinarily <br /><br /><br />resides". Now whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a <br /><br /><br />given place is primarily a question of intention which in turn <br /><br /><br />is a question of fact. It may at best be a mixed question of <br /><br /><br />law and fact, but unless the jurisdictional facts are admitted <br /><br /><br />it can never be a pure question of law, capable of being <br /><br /><br />answered without an enquiry into the factual aspects of the <br /><br /><br />controversy. The factual aspects relevant to the question of <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction are not admitted in the instant case. There are <br /><br /><br />serious disputes on those aspects to which we shall <br /><br /><br />presently refer. We may before doing so examine the true <br /><br /><br />purpose of the expression `ordinarily resident' appearing in <br /><br /><br />Section 9(1) (supra). This expression has been used in <br /><br /><br /> 16<br /><br /> <br />different contexts and statutes and has often come up for <br /><br /><br />interpretation. Since liberal interpretation is the first and the <br /><br /><br />foremost rule of interpretation it would be useful to <br /><br /><br />understand the literal meaning of the two words that <br /><br /><br />comprise the expression. The word `ordinary' has been <br /><br /><br />defined by the Black's Law Dictionary as follows:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "Ordinary (Adj.) :Regular; usual; normal; common; <br /><br /> often recurring; according to established order; settled; <br /><br /> customary; reasonable; not characterized by peculiar or <br /><br /> unusual circumstances; belonging to, exercised by, or <br /><br /> characteristic of, the normal or average individual."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The word `reside' has been explained similarly as <br /><br /><br />under:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "Reside: live, dwell, abide, sojourn, stay, remain, <br /><br /> lodge. (Western- Knapp Engineering Co. V. Gillbank, <br /><br /> C.C.A. Cal., 129 F2d 135, 136.) To settle oneself or a <br /><br /> thing in a place, to be stationed, to remain or stay, to <br /><br /> dwell permanently or continuously, to have a settled <br /><br /> abode for a time, to have one's residence or domicile; <br /><br /> specifically, to be in residence, to have an abiding <br /><br /> place, to be present as an element, to inhere as quality, <br /><br /> to be vested as a right. (State ex rel. Bowden v. Jensen <br /><br /> Mo., 359 S.W.2d 343, 349.)"<br /><br /><br /> 17<br /><br /> <br /> In Websters dictionary also the word `reside' finds a <br /><br /><br />similar meaning, which may be gainfully extracted:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "1. To dwell for a considerable time; to make one's <br /><br /> home; live. 2. To exist as an attribute or quality with in. <br /><br /> 3. To be vested: with in"<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In Mrs. Annie Besant v. Narayaniah AIR 1914 PC 41 <br /><br /><br />the infants had been residing in the district of Chingleput in <br /><br /><br />the Madras Presidency. They were given in custody of Mrs. <br /><br /><br />Annie Besant for the purpose of education and were getting <br /><br /><br />their education in England at the University of Oxford. A <br /><br /><br />case was, however, filed in the district Court of Chingleput <br /><br /><br />for the custody where according to the plaintiff the minors <br /><br /><br />had permanently resided. Repeating the plea that the <br /><br /><br />Chingleput Court was competent to entertain the application <br /><br /><br />their Lordships of the Privy Council observed:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "The district court in which the suit was instituted had <br /><br /> no jurisdiction over the infants except such jurisdiction <br /><br /> as was conferred by the Guardians and Wards Act <br /><br /><br /> 18<br /><br /> <br /> 1890. By the ninth Section of that Act the jurisdiction of <br /><br /> the court is confined to infants ordinarily residing in the <br /><br /> district.<br /><br /><br /><br /> It is in their Lordship's opinion impossible to hold that <br /><br /> the infants who had months previously left India with a <br /><br /> view to being educated in England and going to <br /><br /> University had acquired their ordinary residence in the <br /><br /> district of Chingleput."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> In Mst. Jagir Kaur and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh AIR <br /><br /><br />1963 SC 1521, this Court was dealing with a case under <br /><br /><br />Section 488 Cr.P.C. and the question of jurisdiction of the <br /><br /><br />Court to entertain a petition for maintenance. The Court <br /><br /><br />noticed a near unanimity of opinion as to what is meant by <br /><br /><br />the use of the word "resides" appearing in the provision and <br /><br /><br />held that "resides" implied something more than a flying <br /><br /><br />visit to, or casual stay at a particular place. The legal <br /><br /><br />position was summed up in the following words:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> ".......Having regard to the object sought to be achieved, <br /><br /> the meaning implicit in the words used, and the <br /><br /> construction placed by decided cases there on, we <br /><br /> would define the word "resides" thus: a person resides <br /><br /> in a place if he through choice makes it his abode <br /><br /> 19<br /><br /> <br /> permanently or even temporarily; whether a person has <br /><br /> chosen to make a particular place his abode depends <br /><br /> upon the facts of each case....." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In Kuldip Nayar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. <br /><br /><br />2006 (7) SCC 1, the expression "ordinary residence" as used <br /><br /><br />in the Representation of People Act, 1950 fell for <br /><br /><br />interpretation. This Court observed:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "243. Lexicon refers to Cicutti v. Suffolk County <br /> Council (1980) 3 All ER 689 to denote that the word <br /> "ordinarily" is primarily directed not to duration but to <br /> purpose. In this sense the question is not so much <br /> where the person is to be found "ordinarily", in the <br /> sense of usually or habitually and with some degree of <br /> continuity, but whether the quality of residence is <br /> "ordinary" and general, rather than merely for some <br /> special or limited purpose.<br /><br /> 244. The words "ordinarily" and "resident" have been <br /> used together in other statutory provisions as well and <br /> as per Law Lexicon they have been construed as not to <br /> require that the person should be one who is always <br /> resident or carries on business in the particular place.<br /><br /> 245. The expression coined by joining the two words <br /> has to be interpreted with reference to the point of time <br /> requisite for the purposes of the provision, in the case <br /> of Section 20 of the RP Act, 1950 it being the date on <br /> which a person seeks to be registered as an elector in a <br /> particular constituency.<br /><br /> 246. Thus, residence is a concept that may also be <br /> transitory. Even when qualified by the word "ordinarily" <br /> the word "resident" would not result in a construction <br /> having the effect of a requirement of the person using a <br /> particular place for dwelling always or on permanent <br /> uninterrupted basis. Thus understood, even the <br /><br /> 20<br /><br /> <br /> requirement of a person being "ordinarily resident" at a <br /> particular place is incapable of ensuring nexus between <br /> him and the place in question."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Reference may be made to Bhagyalakshmi and Anr. <br /><br /><br />v. K.N. Narayana Rao AIR 1983 Mad 9, Aparna Banerjee <br /><br /><br />v. Tapan Banerjee AIR 1986 P&H 113, Ram Sarup v. <br /><br /><br />Chimman Lal and Ors. AIR 1952 All 79, Smt. Vimla Devi <br /><br /><br />v. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. AIR 1981 Raj. 211, and in re: <br /><br /><br />Dr. Giovanni Marco Muzzu and etc. etc. AIR 1983 Bom. <br /><br /><br />242, in which the High Courts have dealt with the meaning <br /><br /><br />and purport of the expressions like `ordinary resident' and <br /><br /><br />`ordinarily resides' and taken the view that the question <br /><br /><br />whether one is ordinarily residing at a given place depends <br /><br /><br />so much on the intention to make that place ones ordinary <br /><br /><br />abode.<br /><br /><br /> Let us now in the light of the above, look at the rival <br /><br /><br />versions of the parties before us, to determine whether the <br /><br /><br />Court at Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the <br /><br /><br />proceedings for custody of master Kush. As seen earlier, <br /><br /><br /> 21<br /><br /> <br />the case of the appellant mother is that Kush is ordinarily <br /><br /><br />residing with her in Delhi. In support of that assertion she <br /><br /><br />has among other circumstances placed reliance upon the <br /><br /><br />letter which the respondent, father of the minor child wrote <br /><br /><br />to the appellant on 19th July, 2008. The letter is to the <br /><br /><br />following effect:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "Ruchi,<br /><br /><br /> As you wish to stay in India with Kush and try <br /><br /> career option of Dental medicine at Delhi, I give <br /><br /> my whole-hearted support and request you to put <br /><br /> Kush in an Indo-American school or equivalent at <br /><br /> Delhi this year.<br /><br /><br /> Please let me know the expenses involved for <br /><br /> education of Kush and I would like to bear <br /><br /> completely.<br /><br /><br /> Sd/- Sanjeev<br /><br /> July 19, 2008" <br /><br /> The appellant's case is that although the couple and <br /><br /><br />their son had initially planned to return to U.S.A. that <br /><br /><br />decision was taken with the mutual consent of the parties <br /><br /><br />changed to allow the appellant to stay back in India and to <br /><br /><br />explore career options here. Master Kush was also according <br /><br /><br /><br /> 22<br /><br /> <br />to that decision of his parents, to stay back and be admitted <br /><br /><br />to a school in Delhi. The decision on both counts, was free <br /><br /><br />from any duress whatsoever, and had the effect of shifting <br /><br /><br />the "ordinary residence" of the appellant and her son Kush <br /><br /><br />from the place they were living in America to Delhi. Not <br /><br /><br />only this the respondent father of the minor, had upon his <br /><br /><br />return to America sent E-mails, reiterating the decision and <br /><br /><br />offering his full support to the appellant. This is according to <br /><br /><br />the appellant clear from the text of the E-mails exchanged <br /><br /><br />between the parties and which are self-explanatory as to the <br /><br /><br />context in which they are sent.<br /><br /><br /> The respondent's case on the contrary is that he was <br /><br /><br />coerced to put in writing a tentative arrangement on the <br /><br /><br />ground of appellant trying career options in dental medicine <br /><br /><br />at Delhi and minor Kush allowed to stay at Delhi for the year <br /><br /><br />2008. This letter was, according to the respondent, obtained <br /><br /><br />under deceit, pressure, threat and coercion. In his <br /><br /><br />application challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court the <br /><br /><br /><br /> 23<br /><br /> <br />respondent further stated that even if it be assumed that the <br /><br /><br />appellant and Kush had stayed back in India with the <br /><br /><br />permission of the respondent, the same stood withdrawn. To <br /><br /><br />the same effect was the stand taken by the respondent in <br /><br /><br />his petition under Article 227 filed before this Court. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> It is evident from the statement and the pleadings of <br /><br /><br />the parties that the question whether the decision to allow <br /><br /><br />the appellant and Kush to stay back in Delhi instead of <br /><br /><br />returning to America was a voluntary decision as claimed by <br /><br /><br />the appellant or a decision taken by the respondent under <br /><br /><br />duress as alleged by him was a seriously disputed question <br /><br /><br />of facts, a satisfactory answer to which could be given either <br /><br /><br />by the District Court where the custody case was filed or by <br /><br /><br />the High Court only after the parties had been given <br /><br /><br />opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective <br /><br /><br />versions. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 24<br /><br /> <br /> In the light of the above, we asked Mr. Pallav <br /><br /><br />Shishodia, learned senior counsel for the respondent <br /><br /><br />whether the respondent would adduce evidence to <br /><br /><br />substantiate his charge of duress and coercion as vitiating <br /><br /><br />circumstances for the Court to exclude the letter in question <br /><br /><br />from consideration. Mr. Shishodia argued on instructions <br /><br /><br />that the respondent had no intention of leading any evidence <br /><br /><br />in support of his case that the letter was obtained under <br /><br /><br />duress. In fairness to him we must mention that he <br /><br /><br />beseeched us to decide the question regarding jurisdiction of <br /><br /><br />the Court on the available material without remanding the <br /><br /><br />matter to the Trial Court for recording of evidence from <br /><br /><br />either party. Mr. Shishodia also give us an impression as <br /><br /><br />though any remand on the question of duress and coercion <br /><br /><br />would be futile because the respondent father was not <br /><br /><br />willing to go beyond what he has already done in pursuit of <br /><br /><br />his claim to the custody of the minor. In that view of the <br /><br /><br />matter, therefore, we are not remanding the case for <br /><br /><br /><br /> 25<br /><br /> <br />recording of evidence as we were at one stage of hearing <br /><br /><br />thought of doing. We are instead taking a final view on the <br /><br /><br />question of jurisdiction of the Delhi Court, to entertain the <br /><br /><br />application on the basis of the available material. This <br /><br /><br />material comprises the letter dated 19th July, 2008 written <br /><br /><br />by the respondent and referred to by us earlier and the e-<br /><br /><br />mails exchanged between the parties. That the letter in <br /><br /><br />question was written by the respondent is not in dispute. <br /><br /><br />What is argued is that the letter was written under duress <br /><br /><br />and coercion. There is nothing before us to substantiate that <br /><br /><br />allegation, and in the face of Mr. Shishodia's categoric <br /><br /><br />statement that the respondent does not wish to adduce any <br /><br /><br />evidence to prove his charge of coercion and duress, we <br /><br /><br />have no option except to hold that the said charge remains <br /><br /><br />unproved.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> More importantly the E-mails exchanged between the <br /><br /><br />parties, copies whereof have been placed on record, <br /><br /><br /><br /> 26<br /><br /> <br />completely disprove the respondent's case of any coercion or <br /><br /><br />duress. The first of these E-mails is dated the 17th July, <br /><br /><br />2008 sent by the respondent to his friend in America, <br /><br /><br />pointing out that the appellant was staying back in India <br /><br /><br />with the minor for the present. The text of the E-mail is as <br /><br /><br />under:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "Hi Joanne,<br /><br /><br /> Hope all is well.<br /><br /><br /> I got your voicemail, actually we recently <br /><br /> changed our service provider for home phone, please <br /><br /> see below our updated contact information.<br /><br /><br /> Home-9187071716<br /><br /> Sanjay mobile - 8054100872, this works in India <br /><br /><br /> Ruchi's mobile remains the same, however it will not <br /><br /> work since we are currently in India. I will be back in LA <br /><br /> on Jul 2-, however Ruchi wants to stay in Delhi <br /><br /> alongwith Kush for now.<br /><br /> Regards,<br /><br /> Sanjeev"<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> On 21st July, 2008 i.e. a day after the respondent <br /><br /><br />reached America the appellant sent him an e-mail which <br /><br /><br />clearly indicates that the minor was being admitted to a <br /><br /> 27<br /><br /> <br />school in Delhi and by which the respondent was asked to <br /><br /><br />send American School's record for that purpose. The e-mail <br /><br /><br />is to the following effect.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "Sanjeev<br /><br /><br /> Also please call up Red Oak elementary and inform <br /><br /> them that Kush will be starting American schooling in <br /><br /> India for now and request personal recommendation <br /><br /> from Mrs. Merfield and Mrs. Johnson, they know Kush v <br /><br /> well..Also we need 2 yrs of official school records (one <br /><br /> from sumac and other from red oak) Please send $$ <br /><br /> asap. I will find if they have a direct deposit at school, <br /><br /> to make it easy on u..thanks<br /><br /><br /> Ruchi"<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In response to the above, the respondent sent an E-<br /><br /><br />mail which does not in the least, give an impression that <br /><br /><br />the decision to allow master Kush to stay back in Delhi and <br /><br /><br />to get admitted to a School here was taken under any kind <br /><br /><br />of duress or coercion as is now claimed. The E-mail is to <br /><br /><br />the following effect:<br /><br /><br /><br /> `Hi Ruchi,<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 28<br /><br /> <br /> I checked out website for both American and British <br /><br /> schools, the fees for these schools is extremely high <br /><br /> between $ 20000 - $ 25000 per annum, this will deduct <br /><br /> from Kush's college fund which I have worked hard to <br /><br /> create. Also realize that if we take out $ 25,000 from <br /><br /> his college fund now, we loose the effect of <br /><br /> compounding when he needs $ for college 11 years <br /><br /> from now. $ 25000 now will be worth $ 60000-70000 <br /><br /> 11 yrs from now. I really and honestly feel that we <br /><br /> should not deplete Kush's college fund so much at <br /><br /> grade 2m rather leave most of it for higher education. <br /><br /> Also I see a benefit for him to get into a logical high <br /><br /> equality English medium school, he can learn a bit of <br /><br /> Hindi. I would be happy to talk to Kush and make sure <br /><br /> he is comfortable. Let me know your thoughts."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Equally important is another E-mail which the <br /><br /><br />respondent sent to the appellant regarding surrender of the <br /><br /><br />appellant's car and payment of the outstanding lease <br /><br /><br />money, a circumstance that shows that the parties were ad-<br /><br /><br />idem on the question of the appellant winding up her affairs <br /><br /><br />in America.<br /><br /><br /><br /> "Hi Ruchi,<br /><br /><br /> I checked with Acura regarding breaking your lease, <br /><br /> they said that you can surrender the car to them for <br /><br /> repossession and then they will try to sell it in private <br /><br /> action. You will then need to pay the difference <br /><br /> between money raised from private auction and pay off <br /><br /> amount. Also this repossession will damage your credit <br /><br /> history. Let me know your thoughts.<br /><br /> 29<br /><br /> <br /> Hope you are feeling better.<br /><br /><br /> Sanjeev"<br /><br /><br /> Two more E-mails one dated 24.7.2008 and the other <br /><br /><br />dated 19.8.2008 exchanged between the parties on the <br /><br /><br />above subject also bear relevance to the issue at hand and <br /><br /><br />may be extracted:<br /><br /><br /><br /> "Hi Ruchi,<br /><br /><br /> I did more digging for you on this.<br /><br /> See below information from a broker who may be able <br /><br /> to help transfer the lease to another buyer in exchange <br /><br /> for the fees mentioned. Let me know how you want to <br /><br /> proceed.<br /><br /><br /> Sanjeev"<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "Hi Sanjeev<br /><br /><br /> Please proceed with the plan, sell my acura with least <br /><br /> damages...this seems like a better option.<br /><br /> Thanks,<br /><br /><br /> Ruchi" <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> It is difficult to appreciate how the respondent could in <br /><br /><br />the light of the above communications still argue that the <br /><br /><br />decision to allow the appellant and master Kush to stay back <br /><br /> 30<br /><br /> <br />in India was taken under any coercion or duress. It is also <br /><br /><br />difficult to appreciate how the respondent could change his <br /><br /><br />mind so soon after the above E-mails and rush to a Court in <br /><br /><br />U.S. for custody of the minor accusing the appellant of <br /><br /><br />illegal abduction, a charge which is belied by his letter dated <br /><br /><br />19th July, 2008 and the E-mails extracted above. The fact <br /><br /><br />remains that Kush was ordinarily residing with the appellant <br /><br /><br />his mother and has been admitted to a school, where he has <br /><br /><br />been studying for the past nearly three years. The unilateral <br /><br /><br />reversal of a decision by one of the two parents could not <br /><br /><br />change the fact situation as to the minor being an ordinary <br /><br /><br />resident of Delhi, when the decision was taken jointly by <br /><br /><br />both the parents. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> In the light of what we have stated above, the High <br /><br /><br />Court was not, in our opinion, right in holding that the <br /><br /><br />respondent's version regarding the letter in question having <br /><br /><br />been obtained under threat and coercion was acceptable. <br /><br /><br /><br /> 31<br /><br /> <br />The High Court appeared to be of the view that if the letter <br /><br /><br />had not been written under duress and coercion there was <br /><br /><br />no reason for the respondent to move a guardianship <br /><br /><br />petition before U.S. Court. That reasoning has not appealed <br /><br /><br />to us. The question whether or not the letter was obtained <br /><br /><br />under duress and coercion could not be decided only on the <br /><br /><br />basis of the institution of proceedings by the respondent in <br /><br /><br />the U.S. Court. If the letter was under duress and coercion, <br /><br /><br />there was no reason why the respondent should not have <br /><br /><br />repudiated the same no sooner he landed in America and <br /><br /><br />the alleged duress and coercion had ceased. Far from doing <br /><br /><br />so the respondent continued to support that decision even <br /><br /><br />when he was far away from any duress and coercion alleged <br /><br /><br />by him till the time he suddenly changed his mind and <br /><br /><br />started accusing the appellant of abduction. The High Court <br /><br /><br />failed to notice these aspects and fell in error in accepting <br /><br /><br />the version of the respondent and dismissing the application <br /><br /><br />filed by the appellant. In the circumstances we answer <br /><br /><br /><br /> 32<br /><br /> <br />question no.1 in the negative. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Re: Question No.2<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign <br /><br /><br />courts remains an eternal dilemma in as much as whenever <br /><br /><br />called upon to do so, Courts in this country are bound to <br /><br /><br />determine the validity of such decrees and orders keeping in <br /><br /><br />view the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Criminal <br /><br /><br />Procedure 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 <br /><br /><br />and 2002. The duty of a Court exercising its Parens Patraie <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction as in cases involving custody of minor children is <br /><br /><br />all the more onerous. Welfare of the minor in such cases <br /><br /><br />being the paramount consideration; the court has to <br /><br /><br />approach the issue regarding the validity and enforcement of <br /><br /><br />a foreign decree or order carefully. Simply because a foreign <br /><br /><br />court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning <br /><br /><br />the welfare of the minor is not enough for the courts in this <br /><br /><br /><br /> 33<br /><br /> <br />country to shut out an independent consideration of the <br /><br /><br />matter. Objectivity and not abject surrender is the mantra in <br /><br /><br />such cases. That does not, however, mean that the order <br /><br /><br />passed by a foreign court is not even a factor to be kept in <br /><br /><br />view. But it is one thing to consider the foreign judgment to <br /><br /><br />be conclusive and another to treat it as a factor or <br /><br /><br />consideration that would go into the making of a final <br /><br /><br />decision. Judicial pronouncements on the subject are not on <br /><br /><br />virgin ground. A long line of decisions of the court has <br /><br /><br />settled the approach to be adopted in such matters. The <br /><br /><br />plentitude of pronouncements also leaves cleavage in the <br /><br /><br />opinions on certain aspects that need to be settled <br /><br /><br />authoritatively in an appropriate case. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> A survey of law on the subject would, in that view, be <br /><br /><br />necessary and can start with a reference to the decision of <br /><br /><br />this Court in Smt. Satya V. Shri Teja Singh, (1975) 1 SCC <br /><br /><br />120. That was a case in which the validity of a decree for <br /><br /><br /><br /> 34<br /><br /> <br />divorce obtained by the husband from a Court in the State of <br /><br /><br />Naveda (USA) fell for examination. This Court held that the <br /><br /><br />answer to the question depended upon the Rules of private <br /><br /><br />International Law. Since no system of Private International <br /><br /><br />Law existed that could claim universal recognition, the <br /><br /><br />Indian Courts had to decide the issue regarding the validity <br /><br /><br />of the decree in accordance with the Indian law. Rules of <br /><br /><br />Private International Law followed by other countries could <br /><br /><br />not be adopted mechanically, especially when principles <br /><br /><br />underlying such rules varied greatly and were moulded by <br /><br /><br />the distinctive social, political and economic conditions <br /><br /><br />obtaining in different countries. This Court also traced the <br /><br /><br />development of law in America and England and concluded <br /><br /><br />that while British Parliament had found a solution to the <br /><br /><br />vexed questions of recognition of decrees granted by foreign <br /><br /><br />courts by enacting "The recognition of Divorces and Legal <br /><br /><br />Separations Act, 1971" our Parliament had yet to do so. In <br /><br /><br />the facts and circumstances of that case the Court held that <br /><br /><br /><br /> 35<br /><br /> <br />the husband was not domiciled in Naveda and that his brief <br /><br /><br />stay in that State did not confer any jurisdiction upon the <br /><br /><br />Naveda Court to grant a decree dissolving the marriage, he <br /><br /><br />being no more than a bird of passage who had resorted to <br /><br /><br />the proceedings there solely to find jurisdiction and obtain a <br /><br /><br />decree for divorce by misrepresenting the facts as regards <br /><br /><br />his domicile in that State. This Court while refusing to <br /><br /><br />recognize the decree observed:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "True that the concept of domicile is not uniform <br /><br /> throughout the world and just as long residence does <br /><br /> not by itself establish domicile, a brief residence may <br /><br /> not negative it. But residence for a particular purpose <br /><br /> falls to answer the qualitative test for, the purpose <br /><br /> being accomplished the residence would cease. The <br /><br /> residence must answer "a qualitative as well as a <br /><br /> quantitative test", that is, the two elements of factum <br /><br /> et animus must concur. The respondent went to <br /><br /> Naveda forum-hunting, found a convenient jurisdiction <br /><br /> which would easily purvey a divorce to him and left it <br /><br /> even before the ink on his domiciliary assertion was <br /><br /> dry. Thus the decree of the Naveda Court lacks <br /><br /> jurisdiction. It can receive no recognition in our <br /><br /> courts." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> (emphasis <br /><br /> ours)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 36<br /><br /> <br /> In Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde 1998(1) SCC <br /><br /><br />112, one of the questions that fell for consideration was <br /><br /><br />whether the bringing away of a child to India by his mother <br /><br /><br />contrary to an order of US Court would have any bearing on <br /><br /><br />the decision of the Courts in India while deciding about the <br /><br /><br />custody and the welfare of the child. Relying upon McKee v. <br /><br /><br />KcKee, 1951 AC 352: 1951(1) All ER 942 and J v. C 1970 <br /><br /><br />AC 668:1969(1) All ER 788, this Court held that it was the <br /><br /><br />duty of the Courts in the country to which a child is removed <br /><br /><br />to consider the question of custody, having regard to the <br /><br /><br />welfare of the child. In doing so, the order passed by the <br /><br /><br />foreign court would yield to the welfare of the child and that <br /><br /><br />Comity of Courts simply demanded consideration of any <br /><br /><br />such order issued by foreign courts and not necessarily their <br /><br /><br />enforcement. This court further held that the conduct of a <br /><br /><br />summary or elaborate inquiry on the question of custody by <br /><br /><br />the Court in the country to which the child has been <br /><br /><br />removed will depend upon the facts and circumstance of <br /><br /><br /><br /> 37<br /><br /> <br />each case. For instance summary jurisdiction is exercised <br /><br /><br />only if the court to which the child had been removed is <br /><br /><br />moved promptly and quickly, for in that event, the Judge <br /><br /><br />may well be persuaded to hold that it would be better for the <br /><br /><br />child that the merits of the case are investigated in a court <br /><br /><br />in his native country, on the expectation that an early <br /><br /><br />decision in the native country would be in the interests of <br /><br /><br />the child before the child could develop roots in the country <br /><br /><br />to which he had been removed. So also the conduct of an <br /><br /><br />elaborate inquiry may depend upon the time that had <br /><br /><br />elapsed between the removal of the child and the institution <br /><br /><br />of the proceedings for custody. This would mean that longer <br /><br /><br />the time gap, the lesser the inclination of the Court to go for <br /><br /><br />a summary inquiry. The court rejected the prayer for <br /><br /><br />returning the child to the country from where he had been <br /><br /><br />removed and observed: <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "31. The facts of the case are that when the <br /> respondent moved the courts in India and in the <br /><br /> 38<br /><br /> <br /> proceedings of 1986 for habeas corpus and under <br /> Guardians and Wards Act, the courts in India thought it <br /> best in the interests of the child to allow it to continue <br /> with the mother in India, and those orders have also <br /> become final. The Indian courts in 1993 or 1997, when <br /> the child had lived with his mother for nearly 12 years, <br /> or more, would not exercise a summary jurisdiction to <br /> return the child to USA on the ground that its removal <br /> from USA in 1984 was contrary to orders of US courts."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> We must at this stage refer to two other decisions of <br /><br /><br />this Court, reliance upon which was placed by the learned <br /><br /><br />counsel for the parties. In Sarita Sharma v. Sushil <br /><br /><br />Sharma (2000) 3 SCC 14 this Court was dealing with an <br /><br /><br />appeal arising out of a habeas corpus petition filed before <br /><br /><br />the High Court of Delhi in respect of two minor children aged <br /><br /><br />3 years and 7 years respectively. It was alleged that the <br /><br /><br />children were in illegal custody of Sarita Sharma their <br /><br /><br />mother. The High Court had allowed the petition and <br /><br /><br />directed the mother to restore the custody of the children to <br /><br /><br />Sushil Sharma who was in turn permitted to take the <br /><br /><br />children to U.S.A. without any hindrance. One of the <br /><br /><br />contentions that was urged before this Court was that the <br /><br /><br /> 39<br /><br /> <br />removal of children from U.S.A. to India was against the <br /><br /><br />orders passed by the American Court, which orders had <br /><br /><br />granted to the father the custody of the minor children. <br /><br /><br />Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the <br /><br /><br />High Court, this Court held that the order passed by the U.S. <br /><br /><br />courts constituted but one of the factors which could not <br /><br /><br />override the consideration of welfare of the minor children. <br /><br /><br />Considering the fact that the husband was staying with his <br /><br /><br />mother aged about 80 years and that there was no one else <br /><br /><br />in the family to lookafter the children, this Court held that it <br /><br /><br />was not in the interest of the children to be put in the <br /><br /><br />custody of the father who was addicted to excessive alcohol. <br /><br /><br />Even this case arose out of a writ petition and not a petition <br /><br /><br />under the Guardians and Wards Act. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India <br /><br /><br />and Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 174 also this Court was dealing with <br /><br /><br />a habeas corpus petition filed directly before it under Article <br /><br /><br /><br /> 40<br /><br /> <br />32 of the Constitution. This Court held that while dealing <br /><br /><br />with a case of custody of children removed by a parent from <br /><br /><br />one country to another in contravention of the orders of the <br /><br /><br />court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, <br /><br /><br />the court in the country to which the child has been removed <br /><br /><br />must first consider whether the court could conduct an <br /><br /><br />elaborate enquiry on the question of custody or deal with <br /><br /><br />the matter summarily and order the parent to return the <br /><br /><br />custody of the child to the country from which he/she was <br /><br /><br />removed, leaving all aspects relating to child's welfare to be <br /><br /><br />investigated by Court in his own country. This Court held <br /><br /><br />that in case an elaborate enquiry was considered <br /><br /><br />appropriate, the order passed by a foreign court may be <br /><br /><br />given due weight depending upon the circumstances of each <br /><br /><br />case in which such an order had been passed. Having said <br /><br /><br />so, this Court directed the child to be sent back to U.S. and <br /><br /><br />issued incidental directions in that regard. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 41<br /><br /> <br /> In Shilpa Aggarwal (Ms.) v. Aviral Mittal & Anr. <br /><br /><br />(2010) 1 SCC 591 this Court followed the same line of <br /><br /><br />reasoning. That was also a case arising out of a habeas <br /><br /><br />corpus petition before the High Court of Delhi filed by the <br /><br /><br />father of the child. The High Court had directed the return <br /><br /><br />of the child to England to join the proceedings before the <br /><br /><br />courts of England and Wales failing which the child had to be <br /><br /><br />handed over to the petitioner-father to be taken to England <br /><br /><br />as a measure of interim custody leaving it for the court in <br /><br /><br />that country to determine which parent would be best suited <br /><br /><br />to have the custody of the child. That direction was upheld <br /><br /><br />by this Court with the observation that since the question as <br /><br /><br />to what is in the interest of the minor had to be considered <br /><br /><br />by the court in U.K. in terms of the order passed by the High <br /><br /><br />Court directing return of the child to the jurisdiction of the <br /><br /><br />said court did not call for any interference.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 42<br /><br /> <br /> We do not propose to burden this judgment by <br /><br /><br />referring to a long line of other decisions which have been <br /><br /><br />delivered on the subject, for they do not in our opinion state <br /><br /><br />the law differently from what has been stated in the <br /><br /><br />decisions already referred to by us. What, however, needs to <br /><br /><br />be stated for the sake of a clear understanding of the legal <br /><br /><br />position is that the cases to which we have drawn attention, <br /><br /><br />as indeed any other case raising the question of jurisdiction <br /><br /><br />of the court to determine mutual rights and obligation of the <br /><br /><br />parties, including the question whether a court otherwise <br /><br /><br />competent to entertain the proceedings concerning the <br /><br /><br />custody of the minor, ought to hold a summary or a detailed <br /><br /><br />enquiry into the matter and whether it ought to decline <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction on the principle of comity of nations or the test <br /><br /><br />of the closest contact evolved by this Court in Smt. <br /><br /><br />Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu and <br /><br /><br />Anr. (1984) 3 SCC 698 have arisen either out of writ <br /><br /><br />proceedings filed by the aggrieved party in the High Court or <br /><br /><br /><br /> 43<br /><br /> <br />this Court or out of proceedings under the Guardian & Wards <br /><br /><br />Act. Decisions rendered by this Court in Mrs. Elizabeth <br /><br /><br />Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and Anr. (1987) 1 SCC <br /><br /><br />42, Sarita Sharma's case (supra), V. Ravi Chandran's <br /><br /><br />case (supra), Shilpa Aggarwal's case (supra) arose out of <br /><br /><br />proceedings in the nature of habeas corpus. The rest had <br /><br /><br />their origin in custody proceedings launched under the <br /><br /><br />Guardian & Wards Act. Proceedings in the nature of Habeas <br /><br /><br />Corpus are summary in nature, where the legality of the <br /><br /><br />detention of the alleged detenue is examined on the basis of <br /><br /><br />affidavits placed by the parties. Even so, nothing prevents <br /><br /><br />the High Court from embarking upon a detailed enquiry in <br /><br /><br />cases where the welfare of a minor is in question, which is <br /><br /><br />the paramount consideration for the Court while exercising <br /><br /><br />its parens patriae jurisdiction. A High Court may, therefore, <br /><br /><br />invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction to determine the <br /><br /><br />validity of the detention, in cases that fall within its <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction and may also issue orders as to custody of the <br /><br /><br /><br /> 44<br /><br /> <br />minor depending upon how the court views the rival claims, <br /><br /><br />if any, to such custody. The Court may also direct <br /><br /><br />repatriation of the minor child for the country from where <br /><br /><br />he/she may have been removed by a parent or other <br /><br /><br />person; as was directed by this Court in Ravi Chandran's & <br /><br /><br />Shilpa Agarwal's cases (supra) or refuse to do so as was <br /><br /><br />the position in Sarita Sharma's case (supra). What is <br /><br /><br />important is that so long as the alleged detenue is within the <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction of the High Court no question of its competence <br /><br /><br />to pass appropriate orders arises. The writ court's <br /><br /><br />jurisdiction to make appropriate orders regarding custody <br /><br /><br />arises no sooner it is found that the alleged detenue is <br /><br /><br />within its territorial jurisdiction. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In cases arising out of proceedings under the Guardian <br /><br /><br />& Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the Court is determined by <br /><br /><br />whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on <br /><br /><br />which the Court exercises such jurisdiction. There is thus a <br /><br /><br /><br /> 45<br /><br /> <br />significant difference between the jurisdictional facts <br /><br /><br />relevant to the exercise of powers by a writ court on the one <br /><br /><br />hand and a court under the Guardian & Wards Act on the <br /><br /><br />other. Having said that we must make it clear that no matter <br /><br /><br />a Court is exercising powers under the Guardian & Wards <br /><br /><br />Act it can choose to hold a summary enquiry into the matter <br /><br /><br />and pass appropriate orders provided it is otherwise <br /><br /><br />competent to entertain a petition for custody of the minor <br /><br /><br />under Section 9(1) of the Act. This is clear from the decision <br /><br /><br />of this Court in Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) <br /><br /><br />1 SCC 112, which arose out of proceedings under the <br /><br /><br />Guardian & Wards Act. The following passage is in this <br /><br /><br />regard apposite:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> "We may here state that this Court in Elizabeth <br /> Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw (1987) 1 SCC 42 while <br /> dealing with a child removed by the father from USA <br /> contrary to the custody orders of the US Court directed <br /> that the child be sent back to USA to the mother not <br /> only because of the principle of comity but also <br /> because, on facts, -- which were independently <br /> considered -- it was in the interests of the child to be <br /> sent back to the native State. There the removal of the <br /> child by the father and the mother's application in India <br /><br /> 46<br /><br /> <br /> were within six months. In that context, this Court <br /> referred to H. (infants), Re (1966) 1 ALL ER 886 which <br /> case, as pointed out by us above has been explained in <br /> L. Re (1974) 1 All ER 913, CA as a case where the <br /> Court thought it fit to exercise its summary jurisdiction <br /> in the interests of the child. Be that as it may, the <br /> general principles laid down in McKee v. McKee (1951) <br /> 1 All ER 942 and J v. C (1969) 1 All ER 788 and the <br /> distinction between summary and elaborate inquiries as <br /> stated in L. (infants), Re (1974) 1 All ER 913, CA are <br /> today well settled in UK, Canada, Australia and the <br /> USA. The same principles apply in our country. <br /> Therefore nothing precludes the Indian courts from <br /> considering the question on merits, having regard to <br /> the delay from 1984 -- even assuming that the earlier <br /> orders passed in India do not operate as constructive <br /> res judicata."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> It does not require much persuasion for us to hold that <br /><br /><br />the issue whether the Court should hold a summary or a <br /><br /><br />detailed enquiry would arise only if the Court finds that it <br /><br /><br />has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. If the answer to <br /><br /><br />the question touching jurisdiction is in the negative the <br /><br /><br />logical result has to be an order of dismissal of the <br /><br /><br />proceedings or return of the application for presentation <br /><br /><br />before the Court competent to entertain the same. A Court <br /><br /><br />that has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for custody <br /><br /><br />cannot pass any order or issue any direction for the return <br /><br /><br /><br /> 47<br /><br /> <br />of the child to the country from where he has been removed, <br /><br /><br />no matter such removal is found to be in violation of an <br /><br /><br />order issued by a Court in that country. The party aggrieved <br /><br /><br />of such removal, may seek any other remedy legally open to <br /><br /><br />it. But no redress to such a party will be permissible before <br /><br /><br />the Court who finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain <br /><br /><br />the proceedings.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> We have while dealing with question No.1 above held <br /><br /><br />that the Court at Delhi was in the facts and circumstances of <br /><br /><br />the case competent to entertain the application filed by the <br /><br /><br />appellant. What needs to be examined is whether the High <br /><br /><br />Court was right in relying upon the principle of comity of <br /><br /><br />courts and dismissing the application. Our answer is in the <br /><br /><br />negative. The reasons are not far to seek. The first and <br /><br /><br />foremost of them being that `comity of courts' principle <br /><br /><br />ensures that foreign judgments and orders are <br /><br /><br />unconditionally conclusive of the matter in controversy. This <br /><br /><br /><br /> 48<br /><br /> <br />is all the more so where the courts in this country deal with <br /><br /><br />matters concerning the interest and welfare of minors <br /><br /><br />including their custody. Interest and welfare of the minor <br /><br /><br />being paramount, a competent court in this country is <br /><br /><br />entitled and indeed duty bound to examine the matter <br /><br /><br />independently, taking the foreign judgment, if any, only as <br /><br /><br />an input for its final adjudication. Decisions of this Court in <br /><br /><br />Dhanwanti Joshi, and Sarita Sharma's cases, (supra) <br /><br /><br />clearly support that proposition.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Secondly, the respondent's case that the minor was <br /><br /><br />removed from the jurisdiction of the American Courts in <br /><br /><br />contravention of the orders passed by them, is not factually <br /><br /><br />correct. Unlike V. Ravi Chandran's case (supra), where <br /><br /><br />the minor was removed in violation of an order passed by <br /><br /><br />the American Court there were no proceedings between the <br /><br /><br />parties in any Court in America before they came to India <br /><br /><br />with the minor. Such proceedings were instituted by the <br /><br /><br /><br /> 49<br /><br /> <br />respondent only after he had agreed to leave the appellant <br /><br /><br />and the minor behind in India, for the former to explore <br /><br /><br />career options and the latter to get admitted to a school. <br /><br /><br />The charge of abduction contrary to a valid order granting <br /><br /><br />custody is, therefore, untenable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Thirdly, because the minor has been living in India and <br /><br /><br />pursuing his studies in a reputed school in Delhi for nearly <br /><br /><br />three years now. In the course of the hearing of the case, <br /><br /><br />we had an occasion to interact with the minor in our <br /><br /><br />chambers. He appears to be happy with his studies and <br /><br /><br />school and does not evince any interest in returning to his <br /><br /><br />school in America. His concern was more related to the <br /><br /><br />abduction charge and consequent harassment being faced <br /><br /><br />by his mother and maternal grandparents. We shall advert <br /><br /><br />to this aspect a little later, but for the present we only need <br /><br /><br />to mention that the minor appears to be settled in his <br /><br /><br />environment including his school studies and friends. He also <br /><br /><br /><br /> 50<br /><br /> <br />holds the respondent responsible for the troubles which his <br /><br /><br />mother is undergoing and is quite critical about the <br /><br /><br />respondent getting married to another woman.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Fourthly, because even the respondent does not grudge <br /><br /><br />the appellant getting custody of the minor, provided she <br /><br /><br />returns to America with the minor. Mr. Shishodia was asking <br /><br /><br />to make a solemn statement that the respondent would not, <br /><br /><br />oppose the appellant's prayer for the custody of the minor, <br /><br /><br />before the American Court. All that the respondent wants is <br /><br /><br />that the minor is brought up and educated in America, <br /><br /><br />instead of India, as the minor would benefit from the same.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The appellant was not willing to accept that proposal, <br /><br /><br />for according to her she has no intentions of returning to <br /><br /><br />that country in the foreseeable future especially after she <br /><br /><br />has had a very traumatic period on account of matrimonial <br /><br /><br />discord with the respondent. Besides, the offer was <br /><br /><br /><br /> 51<br /><br /> <br />according to the appellant, only meant to score a point more <br /><br /><br />than giving any real benefit to the minor. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In the light of all these circumstances, repatriation of <br /><br /><br />the minor to the United States, on the principle of `comity of <br /><br /><br />courts' does not appear to us to be an acceptable option <br /><br /><br />worthy of being exercised at this stage. Dismissal of the <br /><br /><br />application for custody in disregard of the attendant <br /><br /><br />circumstances referred to above was not in our view a <br /><br /><br />proper exercise of discretion by the High Court. Interest of <br /><br /><br />the minor shall be better served if he continued in the <br /><br /><br />custody of his mother the appellant in this appeal, especially <br /><br /><br />when the respondent has contracted a second marriage and <br /><br /><br />did not appear to be keen for having actual custody of the <br /><br /><br />minor. Question No.2 is also for the above reasons answered <br /><br /><br />in the negative. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Re. Question No.3<br /><br /><br /><br /> 52<br /><br /> <br /> The order of the Delhi Court granting interim custody of <br /><br /><br />the minor to the appellant did not make any provision for <br /><br /><br />visitation rights of the respondent father of the child. In the <br /><br /><br />ordinary course the court ought to have done so not only <br /><br /><br />because even an interim order of custody in favour of the <br /><br /><br />parent should not insulate the minor from the parental <br /><br /><br />touch and influence of the other parent which is so very <br /><br /><br />important for the healthy growth of the minor and the <br /><br /><br />development of his personality. It is noteworthy that even <br /><br /><br />the respondent did not claim such rights in his application or <br /><br /><br />in the proceedings before the High Court. Indeed Mr. <br /><br /><br />Shishodia expressed serious apprehensions about the safety <br /><br /><br />of his client, if he were to visit India in order to meet the <br /><br /><br />child and associate with him. Some of these apprehensions <br /><br /><br />may not be entirely out of place but that does not mean that <br /><br /><br />the courts below could not grant redress against the same. <br /><br /><br />One of these apprehensions is that the respondent may be <br /><br /><br /><br /> 53<br /><br /> <br />involved in a false case under Section 498A & 406 of the IPC <br /><br /><br />or provisions like the Prohibition of Dowry Act 1961. A case <br /><br /><br />FIR No.97 dated 7.7.2009 has, in fact, been registered <br /><br /><br />against the respondent, which has been quashed by the <br /><br /><br />High Court by its order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed <br /><br /><br />in Crl. M.C. No.3329 of 2009. We have by our order of even <br /><br /><br />date dismissed an appeal against the said order, which must <br /><br /><br />effectively give a quietus to that controversy, and allay the <br /><br /><br />apprehension of the respondent. Not only that we are <br /><br /><br />inclined to issue further directions to ensure that the <br /><br /><br />respondent does not have any legal or other impediment in <br /><br /><br />exercising his visitation rights. <br /><br /><br /> The question then is what should the visitation rights <br /><br /><br />be and how should the same be exercised. But before we <br /><br /><br />examine that aspect, we may advert to the need for the <br /><br /><br />visitation rights of the father to be recognised in the peculiar <br /><br /><br />circumstances of this case. From what we gathered in the <br /><br /><br />course of an interactive session with the minor, we <br /><br /><br /><br /> 54<br /><br /> <br />concluded that the minor has been thoroughly antagonized <br /><br /><br />against the respondent father. He held him responsible for <br /><br /><br />his inability to travel to Malaysia, with his grandparents <br /><br /><br />because if he does so, both the mother and her parents will <br /><br /><br />be arrested on the charge of abduction of the minor. He also <br /><br /><br />held the respondent responsible for his grandparent's skin <br /><br /><br />problems and other worries. He wanted to stay only in India <br /><br /><br />and wanted to be left alone by the respondent. He was <br /><br /><br />reluctantly agreeable to meeting and associating with the <br /><br /><br />respondent provided the respondent has the red corner <br /><br /><br />notice withdrawn so that he and his grandparents can travel <br /><br /><br />abroad. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> For a boy so young in years, these and other <br /><br /><br />expressions suggesting a deep rooted dislike for the father <br /><br /><br />could arise only because of a constant hammering of <br /><br /><br />negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and <br /><br /><br />attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can <br /><br /><br /><br /> 55<br /><br /> <br />hardly be appreciated. What the appellant ought to <br /><br /><br />appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and <br /><br /><br />despire for his father does not serve his interest or his <br /><br /><br />growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has <br /><br /><br />his father's care and guidance, at this formative and <br /><br /><br />impressionable stage of his life. Nor can the role of the <br /><br /><br />father in his upbringing and grooming to face the realities of <br /><br /><br />life be undermined. It is in that view important for the child's <br /><br /><br />healthy growth that we grant to the father visitation rights; <br /><br /><br />that will enable the two to stay in touch and share moments <br /><br /><br />of joy, learning and happiness with each other. Since the <br /><br /><br />respondent is living in another continent such contact cannot <br /><br /><br />be for obvious reasons as frequent as it may have been if <br /><br /><br />they were in the same city. But the forbidding distance that <br /><br /><br />separates the two would get reduced thanks to the modern <br /><br /><br />technology in telecommunications. The appellant has been <br /><br /><br />according to the respondent persistently preventing even <br /><br /><br />telephonic contact between the father and the son. May be <br /><br /><br /><br /> 56<br /><br /> <br />the son has been so poisoned against him that he does not <br /><br /><br />evince any interest in the father. Be that as it may <br /><br /><br />telephonic contact shall not be prevented by the appellant <br /><br /><br />for any reason whatsoever and shall be encouraged at all <br /><br /><br />reasonable time. Video conferencing may also be possible <br /><br /><br />between the two which too shall not only be permitted but <br /><br /><br />encouraged by the appellant. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Besides, the father shall be free to visit the minor in <br /><br /><br />India at any time of the year and meet him for two hours on <br /><br /><br />a daily basis, unhindered by any impediment from the <br /><br /><br />mother or her parents or anyone else for that matter. The <br /><br /><br />place where the meeting can take place shall be indicated by <br /><br /><br />the trial Court after verifying the convenience of both the <br /><br /><br />parties in this regard. The trial Court shall pass necessary <br /><br /><br />orders in this regard without delay and without permitting <br /><br /><br />any dilatory tactics in the matter. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 57<br /><br /> <br /> For the vacations in summer, spring and winter the <br /><br /><br />respondent shall be allowed to take the minor with him for <br /><br /><br />night stay for a period of one week initially and for longer <br /><br /><br />periods in later years, subject to the respondent getting the <br /><br /><br />itinerary in this regard approved from the Guardian & Wards <br /><br /><br />Court. The respondent shall also be free to take the minor <br /><br /><br />out of Delhi subject to the same condition. The respondent <br /><br /><br />shall for that purpose be given the temporary custody of the <br /><br /><br />minor in presence of the trial court, on any working day on <br /><br /><br />the application of the respondent. Return of the minor to the <br /><br /><br />appellant shall also be accordingly before the trial court on a <br /><br /><br />date to be fixed by the court for that purpose. The above <br /><br /><br />directions are subject to the condition that the respondent <br /><br /><br />does not remove the child from the jurisdiction of this Court <br /><br /><br />pending final disposal of the application for grant of custody <br /><br /><br />by the Guardian and Wards Court, Delhi. We make it clear <br /><br /><br />that within the broad parameters of the directions regarding <br /><br /><br />visitation rights of the respondent, the parties shall be free <br /><br /><br /><br /> 58<br /><br /> <br />to seek further directions from the Court seized of the <br /><br /><br />guardianship proceedings; to take care of any difficulties <br /><br /><br />that may arise in the actual implementation of this order.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 59<br /><br /> <br />CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2011<br /><br />(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10362 of 2010)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> In this appeal the appellant has challenged the <br /><br /><br />correctness of an order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed <br /><br /><br />by the High Court of Delhi, quashing FIR No.97 of 2009 <br /><br /><br />registered against respondent-husband and three others in <br /><br /><br />Police Station, Crime against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New <br /><br /><br />Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 <br /><br /><br />read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court has recapitulated <br /><br /><br />the relevant facts and found that the appellant-complainant <br /><br /><br />is a citizen of USA and had all along lived in USA with her <br /><br /><br />son and husband, away from her in laws. The High Court <br /><br /><br />has, on the basis of the statement made by the appellant in <br /><br /><br />California Court, further found that the alleged scene of <br /><br /><br />occurrence was in USA and that her in-laws had no say in <br /><br /><br />the matrimonial life of the couple. The appellant had further <br /><br /><br />stated that all her jewelry was lying in the couple's house in <br /><br /><br />USA and no part of it was with her in-laws as was <br /><br /> 60<br /><br /> <br />subsequently stated to be the position in the FIR lodged by <br /><br /><br />the appellant. No locker number of the bank was disclosed <br /><br /><br />in the FIR nor any date of the opening of locker or the <br /><br /><br />jewelry items lying in it. The particulars of the bank in which <br /><br /><br />the alleged locker was taken by him were also not given in <br /><br /><br />the FIR. The High Court further held that the appellant had <br /><br /><br />not lodged any report although the appellant's parents in-<br /><br /><br />laws were alleged to have stated that the jewelry items were <br /><br /><br />not commensurate with the status of their family as early as <br /><br /><br />in the year 1996. The High Court in that view held that no <br /><br /><br />offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC, was made out <br /><br /><br />against her in-laws on the basis of the allegations made by <br /><br /><br />the appellant in the FIR.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of <br /><br /><br />the opinion that in the light of the findings recorded by the <br /><br /><br />High Court the correctness whereof were not disputed before <br /><br /><br />us, the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR filed by <br /><br /><br /><br /> 61<br /><br /> <br />the appellant. In fairness to the learned counsel, we must <br /><br /><br />mention that although a feeble attempt was made during <br /><br /><br />the course of hearing to assail the order passed by the High <br /><br /><br />Court, that pursuit was soon given up by him. In that view <br /><br /><br />of the matter we see no reason to interfere with the orders <br /><br /><br />passed by the High Court in Crl. M.C. No.3329 of 2009. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> In the result<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> (i) Civil Appeal is allowed and order dated 8th March, <br /><br /><br /> 2010 passed by the High Court hereby set aside. <br /><br /><br /> Consequently, proceedings in G.P. No.361/2001 filed by <br /><br /><br /> the appellant shall go on and be disposed of on the <br /><br /><br /> merits as expeditiously as possible.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> (ii) Order granting interim custody of minor Kush with <br /><br /><br /> appellant is resultantly affirmed subject to the grant of <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 62<br /><br /> <br />visitation right to the father as indicated in body of the <br /><br /><br />order.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(iii) The observations made in this order shall not <br /><br /><br />prejudice the cases of the parties before the trial Court <br /><br /><br />and shall be understood to have been made only for <br /><br /><br />purposes of this appeal except in so far as the question <br /><br /><br />of jurisdiction of the trial Court is concerned which <br /><br /><br />aspect shall be taken to have been finally decided by <br /><br /><br />this Court. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(iv) All authorities statutory or otherwise shall act in aid <br /><br /><br />of the directions given herein above. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(v) Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2011, (Arising out of <br /><br /><br /> SLP (Crl.) No.10362 of 2010) is dismissed.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 63<br /><br /> <br /> (vi) The parties are left to bear their own costs in this <br /><br /><br /> Court and the Courts below.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> ...................................J.<br /><br /> (V.S. SIRPURKAR)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> ...................................J.<br /><br /> (T.S. THAKUR)<br /><br />New Delhi<br /><br />May 13, 2011<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 64V.K.Singh Advocate at Supreme Court of Indiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16908295946347311481noreply@blogger.com0