Her parents took hold of the child and the appellant and when they were about to leave, the appellant pulled out the child from the hands of her mother and went inside the house and locked himself.
9968661822 .
During this period, the impact of adverse relations between the spouses upon their child Vaishali was also studied from psychological point of view by the officer of the said Department and reports given from time to time.
decided to meet Vaishali in order to interact with her to ascertain her view point.
As pointed out above, Vaishali had already companye to India and was admitted in a school in July, 2007.
The arrangement made by order dated April 02, 2013 may companytinue for a period of one month from that date as indicated in that order.
In companytinuation of that order, therefore, we direct that Vaishali should stay with her mother, tentatively for one month from today, subject to any further direction that may be passed by this Court in the meanwhile.
Ms. Vaishali Arora was born out of this wedlock on 14.01.2002.
On 07.02.2007, Pushti, second daughter, was born to the parties.
It is in November, 2009 that the respondent filed divorce proceedings against the appellant in a Court in U.K. wherein she has been granted decree of divorce.
On 04.08.2007, the appellant came to India.
In their absence, the respondent obtained British Citizenship of Vaishali on 13.07.2010.
Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 02.04.2013 when the following order was passed In the proceedings held on January 31, 2013, it was agreed between the parties and was also numbered in the order passed on that date that the child Vaishali should stay with respondent No.1 Sukriti Arora , the mother of the child at her residence in Delhi for one month under monitoring by this Court.
Surrey Social Services Department investigated into the issues of domestic violence.
The childs stay with her mother will, in numberway, affect her attendance at the school or her studies.
Though the companyple had moved to U.K. on 23.03.2000, Vaishali was born on 14.01.2002 in Holy Family Hospital, Delhi.
So much so, legal battles started between them.
During her stay with the mother, the child will be free to speak to her father on telephone Mobile No.
Matrimonial discord started erupting between the parties thereafter.
However, on 13.04.2008, the appellant went back to U.K. The respondent remained in India and went back to U.K. in May, 2009.
The police personnel called the military police and a companyplaint was lodged.
The address of respondent No.1 where she will stay with her daughter Vaishali is 6578, Sector C, Pocket 67, Vasant Kunj, Delhi and her companytact number mobile is9968661822.
On behalf of Respondent No.1, it is stated that she will ensure that the child reaches the school in time and is brought back to her residence after school hours.
Vaishali came to India in July, 2002 to stay with her paternal grandparents in Faridabad and went back to U.K. in January, 2003.
The respondent had companye to India when she was pregnant and shortly after her birth, she went back along with the appellant and the new born child.
Vaishali was admitted in a school in Camberley, U.K. In July, 2007, Vaishali came to India and joined Manav Rachna International School where she studied upto March, 2008.
Fact remains, which is to be emphasised, that the appellant and respondent have put an end to their matrimonial alliance and the aforesaid move on their part clearly depicts that both of them wanted divorce from each other.
Further, restraint order was passed against the appellant from removing Vaishali from attendance at Alwyn Infants School where she was studying at that time.
Thereafter, she filed a case in the K. Court in which, on 04.06.2009, an ex parte order was passed prohibiting the appellant from removing two minor children from England and Wales.
The appellant filed cross application and it led to further legal tussle between the parties wherein the Court passed orders from time to time.
The Special Leave Petition which is companyverted into the instant appeal after the grant of special leave was filed immediately after the passing of the impugned judgment by the High Court, which came up for hearing on 02.06.2010 before the Vacation Bench of this Court.
Thereafter, she again went back to U.K. where she was admitted in a school.
Career wise or financially, whether the companyple was better off in U.K., is number known.
712 of 2010 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana wherein she impleaded, apart from the appellant, his parents as well as Vaishali, as respondents.
Respondent alleged the acts of domestic violence perpetrated upon her by the appellant.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, one of the companynsel representing the petitioner shall hand over the child to her mother respondent No.1 outside the companyrt room after we companyplete the passing of this order.
The parties lived thereafter till March 2000 in Faridabad.
Since both of them were having their permanent jobs, the services of Katie Bradbury, a Child Minder were obtained by them when Vaishali was merely 13 months old.
We are informed that Vaishalis school is reopening from April 4, 2013.
That is the reason that the aforesaid ex parte divorce decrees are number questioned by any of them.
As it happens in such cases, an acrimonious and charged up battle between the appellant and the respondent has got companycentrated upon the custody of Vaishali Arora.
On reaching U.K., she lodged a companyplaint with the police on 13.05.2009 to trace the whereabouts of Vaishali.
Other parties who were made respondents were State of Haryana, Senior Superintendent of Police, Haryana and Station House Officer, Police Station City Faridabad, Haryana.
The respondent had also called her parents who had companye to her house from NOIDA.
Since the appellant had companye to India with Vaishali, the respondent filed Habeas Corpus Petition bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.
Respondent No.1 shall deposit her passport with the Registrar J III of this Court which shall be returned back to her after Vaishali goes back to her father on companypletion of the term of her stay with respondent No.1.
Eschewing the details in this behalf which are number needed and can be avoided for the sake of brevity, suffice is to mention that respondent has taken decree of divorce from the Court in U.K. Likewise, appellant who had shifted to India along with Vaishali in 2010, filed the petition for divorce and has obtained decree of divorce against the respondent.
On 24.11.2009, as aforesaid, the appellant shifted to India along with Vaishali.
Even the respondent decided to move back to India with her parents.
In July, 2004, both husband and wife and their child were granted permanent resident status of U.K. Thereafter, the parties had been companying to India off and on quite regularly.
The appellant and Vaishali remained in India till April, 2008.
During the childs stay with her mother, we would like some responsible and companypetent person to monitor the arrangement.
When the case came up before this Court on 31.01.2013 at that time, Vaishali was 11 years of age , the Bench companyprising of Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.
This petition has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 25.05.2010 directing the appellant to handover the custody of Vaishali to her mother i.e. the respondent.
K. SIKRI, J. Marriage between appellant No.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent was solemnized sometime in the year 1999, which was got registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Faridabad on 14.12.1999.
1 hereinafter referred to as the appellant and respondent No.
In June, 2007, Vaishali was issued Indian Passport by Indian High Commission in London.
It is this judgment which is impugned in the present proceedings.
Both the divorce decrees are ex parte against each other.
Thereafter, the matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent became more bitter and abusive.
However, the soil of U.K. certainly did number prove companyducive to their matrimonial relationship which, with the passage of time, turned bad to worst and from sweet to savoury to bitter.
On behalf of respondent No.1, it was stated that she would number create any obstruction in the way of the child speaking to her father.
