54 law of Belgium.
On that day, the CBI authorities were directed to keep the child under their custody and produce him before the Court on October 27, 2009.
In pursuance of the order dated August 28, 2009, CBI issued look out numberices on all India basis through heads of police of States, Union Territories and Metropolitan Cities and also alert numberices through Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration Immigration , Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and flashed photographs of the child Adithya and his mother Vijayasree Voora.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal preferred by the mother.
She took him to England and did number return him.
Respondent number 6 was also directed to be produced on that date.
Upon the petition for modification of custody filed by the petitioner and the petition for enforcement filed by him and upon the petition for enforcement filed by respondent number6 before the Family Court of the State of New York, on June 18, 2007, upon the companysent of both parties, inter alia, the following order came to be passed ORDERED, the parties shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child and it is further ORDERED, that companymencing during August 2007, Adithya shall reside in Allen, Texas and it is further ORDERED, that the parties acknowledge that it is the intention of the parties to reside within the same companymunity.
The infant had been living with mother in England for nearly two years.
The mother companymenced wardship proceedings in which she brought a motion for an order that the father return the infant to her in Italy.
On that very day, the petitioner was granted temporary sole legal and physical custody of Adithya and respondent number 6 was directed to immediately turn over the minor child and his passport to the petitioner and further her custodial time with the minor child was suspended and it was ordered that the issue of custody of Adithya shall be heard in the jurisdiction of the United States Courts, specifically, the Albany County Family Court.
The father was a Belgian national and the mother a British national who took Belgian nationality on marriage to him.
Ultimately with its earnest efforts, CBI traced Adithya and his mother Vijayashree Voora in Chennai on October 24, 2009 and brought them to Delhi and produced the child along with his mother at the residential office of one of us Tarun Chatterjee, J. on October 25, 2009.
The necessity of such order arose as despite efforts made by the police officers and officials of different states, Adithya and his mother respondent number 6 Vijayasree Voora could number be traced and their whereabouts companyld number be found for more than two years since the numberice was issued by this Court.
She did number return the infant.
On August 08, 2007, the petitioner filed the petition for modification Custody and Violation Petition Custody before the Family Court of the State of New York on which a show cause numberice came to be issued to respondent number6.
On August 28, 2009, this Court passed an order requesting Director, Central Bureau of Investigation CBI to trace minor Adithya and produce him before this Court.
The mother appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The mother thereupon instituted habeas companypus proceedings in the Supreme Court of Ontario seeking to have the child delivered to her.
On October 19, 1963, they obtained in Italian Court a separation order by companysent providing therein that custody of the child would remain with father, with rights of access to the mother .
Pending the proceedings, the Court gave him the custody and ordered the mother to return the infant within twenty four hours of service of the order on her.
On September 8, 2005, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent number6 was dissolved by the New York State Supreme Court.
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 numberschool on Friday ORDERED, that in the event that the mother does number relocate within forty 40 miles from the fathers residence located in Allen, Texas and within twenty 20 miles of Adithyas school , the mother shall have custodial time with the minor child, as follows On Alternating weekends from Friday, at the end of the school day until Monday, prior to the beginning of school, companymencing during the first week of September, 2007.
Child custody order dated April 18, 2005 was incorporated in that order.
In the meanwhile, respondent number 6 has filed companynter affidavit in opposition to the habeas companypus petition and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit to the companynter affidavit filed by respondent number6.
In the month of July 2003, respondent number 6 approached the New York State Supreme Court for divorce and dissolution of marriage.
We heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior companynsel for respondent number 6.
The mother, who had gone to live in England, visited Belgium and was by arrangement given the custody of the infant for some days.
Thereafter, and without the companysent or knowledge of the mother, the father went from the United States of America with the child into the Province of Ontario.
The father shall have custodial time until the companymencement of school.
A boy was born there on March 29, 1962.
It transpires that the Family Court of the State of New York has issued child abuse number bailable warrants against respondent number6.
In the case of Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde9, this Court was again companycerned with the matter relating to removal of a child from one companyntry to another companytrary to custody order of the companyrt from where the child was removed.
The father began divorce proceedings in Belgium, and the Court appointed him guardian.
On August 1, 1945, following applications by the father and the mother, the previous order as to custody was modified to provide full custody of the child to the mother with right of reasonable visitation to the father.
Thereafter the father shall companytinue to have custodial time until such time as the mother either a returns from India and or begins her alternating weekly schedule as set froth herein, or b moves within 40 miles of the fathers residence in Allen, Texas and companymences her custodial time during alternating weeks ORDERED, that each party agrees that they 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 companymunication with the minor child and it is further ORDERED, that each party agrees to provide the other party with the childs 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 On June 28, 2007 respondent number6 brought minor Adithya to India informing the petitioner that she would be residing with her parents in Chennai.
If the mother does relocate to a forty 40 mile radius of the fathers residence which shall be within a twenty 20 mile radius from the childs school ,, the parties shall equally share physical custody of Adithya.
On July 1, 2002, Adithya was born in United States of America.
Buckley, J. in these facts held thus So that even where a foreign companyrt has made an order on the merits which is number the present case, because the only order which has been made was a companysent order without any investigation of the merits by the Italian companyrt that domestic companyrt before whom the matter companyes the Ontario 1965 Ch.217 companyrt in the case to which I have just referred, or this companyrt in the case before me is bound to companysider what is in the best interests of the infant and although the order of the foreign companyrt will be attended to as one of the circumstances to be taken into account it is number companyclusive one way or the other.
On November 4, 2009, matter was adjourned to November 10, 2009 and then to November 12, 2009.
They separated in December 1940 and on September 4, 1941, executed an agreement which provided, inter alia, that neither of them should remove the child out of the United States without the written permission of the other.
The petitioner was permitted to meet the child for one hour on November 10, 2009 and November 12, 2009.
On October 29, 1963, the father brought the infant to England with intention to make England his home.
As regards custody of the minor son Adithya and parenting time, the petitioner and respondent number 6 companysented to the order dated April 18, 2005.
The mother was granted a divorce by a judgment of the Court in Belgium, but the judgment was reversed and the father became entitled to custody by the companymon 1940 Ch.
She also prayed for restraint order against him from taking the infant out of her care.
By a judgment of December 17, 1942, in divorce proceedings before the Superior Court of the State of California, the custody of the child was awarded to the father.
Wells, J., before whom the matter came held that infants best interests would be served in the custody of his father.
A companysent order governing the issues of custody and guardianship of minor Adithya was passed by the New York State Supreme Court on April 18, 2005.
The Court granted joint custody of the child to the petitioner and respondent number 6 and it was stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about the whereabouts of the child.
On October 27, 2009, the matter was adjourned for November 4, 2009 since respondent number6 wanted to engage a lawyer and file a companynter affidavit.
Ravi Chandran praying for a writ of habeas companypus for the production of his minor son Adithya and for handing over the custody and his passport to him.
M. LODHA, J. Adithya is a boy of seven, born on July 1, 2002, in the United States of America.
On July 28, 2005, a Separation Agreement was entered between the petitioner and respondent number6 for distribution of marital property, spouse maintenance and child support.
