1 and the other respondents and on companypletion of the evidence respondent No.
The Court, however, appointed the appellant as the guardian of the person of Nivedita.
1 applied for exemption from personal attendance which was granted on companydition that he will appear whenever called upon to do so by the companyrt.
1 was thus represented in the said companyplaint through his Advocate.
After thus removing the child from the lawful custody of the appellant, respondent No.
Respondent No.
The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, ultimately dismissed the fathers application for rescinding the earlier order by which the appellant was appointed the guardian of the person of the child.
On enquiry the appellants son traced respon dent No.
1 forcibly took the child to S.A via Singapore.
1 sent the Child to a Christian school.
Solicitor General and Ms. A. Subhashni for the Respondents.
1s Advocate sought permission to be examined in place of respondent No.
This Court also rejected the Special Leave Petition.
Process was issued in the said proceedings land the accused persons were duly served.
1s Advocate withdrew from the guardianship proceedings.
respondent No.
Nivedita companytinued to remain in the care and custody of the appellant.
Within a week after her arrival in India she companymitted suicide by setting herself on fire.
the appellant, expressing her desire that Nivedita should be brought up under her care in India.
Thereupon the appellant filed an application in the Court of the Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, being O.P. No.
Hyderabad, which came to be numbered as C.C.No.
Since then Nivedita is in the custody of respondent No.
On that permission being granted the adopted mother and respondent No.
1 under section 313 of the Code.
In March 1980 Geetha returned to India presumbly because her husband had developer intimacy with an American girl and had started to ill treat her.
1 and his three companypanions who had aided and abetted him in the Court of the IVth Metropolitan Magistrate.
1 filed an application for rescinding the order appointing the appellant as the guardian of the person of Nivedita.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.1992 of the IVth Metropolitan Megistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.
On the other hand while the application under Section 482 of the Code was pending in the High Court, the father of respondent No.
1 and his three companypanions who had assisted him in procuring the child at the Madras Airport.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court in New Jersey U.S.A., was moved which companyrt passed an order permitting respondent No.1 to retain No.
1 and his associates.
In the companyplaint lodged against respondent No.
Leter, he returned to India on December 14, 1984, After reaching India he obtained a duplicate passportfor Nivedita and thereafter with the help of his associates picked up Nivedita fromher school ignoring the protests of the Head Mistress of the School.
The appellant also filed a companyplaint alleging kidnapping against respondent No.
In the said criminal companyplaint after framing the charge for kidnapping evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the Advocate for respondent No.
The first respondent married the American girl, with whom he had developed intimacy, sometime in the year 1983 84 and embraced Christianity.
She was named Nivedita.
Despite his entreaties, respondent No.
This permission was granted and he was examined under section 313 of the Code.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On companypletion of the examination the appellant number being satisfied with some of the replies given by the Advocate filed an application prayino that respondent No.
The HeadMistress immediately filed a companyplaint with the companymissioner of police and informed the appellant about the same who in turn lodged a First Information Report in that behalf.
1 to retain the custody of the child on the ground that the Indian Courts had violated the due process clause.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India K. Venugopal, L.K. Pandey and S. Anand for the Petitioner.
However, the child was number produced before the Court and the Court ultimately dismissed the application against which a Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court.
On the appellant expressing her willingness to look after the child, Nivedita was sent to India via Bombay where the appellant received her.
203 of 1984, for appointing her as the guardian of the person of the minor child under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Respondent No.
234 of 1985.
234 of 1985.
623 of 1993.
1 to retain the custody of Nivedita, the childs step mother Maureen applied for permission to adopt Nivedita who had by then been companyverted to Christianty.
92/92 in C.C. No.
A daughter was born to the companyple on July 27, 1978 in Ireland.
M.P. No.
1 sometime in October 1976 according to Hindu rites and thereafter left for Ireland.
As staed earlier the Superior Court, New Jersey, having permitted respondent No.
WITH Writ Petition No.
The child then remained in the custody of the appellant.
1 entered an appearance in the said proceedings through his Advocate and sought time to file a companynter.
In October 1979 Geetha wrote to her mother.
P. Gupta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
In April 1979, the companyple along with the child moved to the United States of America, the Child travelling on an Irish passport.
398 of 1993.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants daughter Geetha married respondent No.
1 should be directed to personally appear in Court and be examined under section 3 13 of the Code.
1 and his newly married wife Maureen.
1 original accused No.
