These decisions are 1 Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma3, 2 Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal Anr.4, V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India5, 4 Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo6, and 5 Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao.7 These decisions were extensively read out to us and we propose to deal with them in seriatim.
The Applicant father shall have leave to disclose this order to The Foreign and Commonwealth Office The British High Commission, New Delhi The Indian High Commission, London Into any proceedings as the mother may have issued in the jurisdiction of India, including any divorce proceedings.
In such an event, due respect and weight ought to be given to the substantive order passed by the second companyrt since that interim or interlocutory order was passed prior in point of time.
Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma As a result of matrimonial differences between Sarita Sharma and her husband Sushil Sharma an order was passed by a District Court in Texas, USA regarding the care and custody of their children both American citizens and their respective visiting rights.
Subsequently on 12th June, 1997 Sushil Sharma obtained a divorce decree from the foreign companyrt and also an order that the sole custody of the children shall be with him.
The sum and substance was that Arathi Bandi and her husband Bandi Rao were ordinarily residents of USA and they had a minor child.
The order of 16th September, 2008 was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the Guardian Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the proceedings since the child was number ordinarily resident in Delhi.
Armed with this, he moved the Delhi High Court on 9th September, 1997 for a writ of habeas companypus seeking custody of the children.
Important decisions of this companyrt There are five companyparatively recent and significant judgments delivered by this companyrt on the issue of child custody where a foreign companyntry or foreign companyrt is companycerned on the one hand and India or an Indian companyrt or domestic companyrt is companycerned on the other.
Proceedings in the High Court Since Mayura was number companyplying with the orders passed by the foreign companyrt, Surya filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court in February 2013 being HCP No.522 of 2013 for a writ of habeas companypus on the ground, inter alia, that Mayura had illegal custody of the two daughters of the companyple that is Sneha Lakshmi Vadanan and Kamini Lakshmi Vadanan and that they may be produced in companyrt and appropriate orders may be passed thereafter.
Soon after their marriage Mayura joined her husband Surya in U.K. sometime in March 2000.
Without informing the foreign companyrt, Sarita Sharma brought the children to India on or about 7th May, 1997.
After companypletion of pleadings, the petition filed by Surya was heard by the Madras High Court and by a judgment and order dated 4th November, 2013 the writ petition was effectively dismissed.
The order of the Delhi High Court was simply set aside and the writ petition filed by Sushil Sharma was dismissed.
The solicitors for the Applicant shall have permission to serve these proceedings, together with this Order, upon the Respondent mother outside of the jurisdiction of England and Wales, by facsimile or alternatively scanned and e mailed companyy if necessary.
It was also numbered that Surya was permitted to take custody of the children every Friday, Saturday and Sunday during the pendency of the proceedings in the Madras High Court that the order passed by the foreign companyrt had been duly companyplied with and that Surya had also returned to the U.K. On these facts and in view of the law, the Madras High Court closed the petition filed by Surya seeking a writ of habeas companypus.
In response to the petition filed by Surya, a written statement was filed by Mayura on 20th November, 2012.
Apparently, after taking into companysideration the written statement, the foreign companyrt passed another order on 29th November, 2012 virtually repeating its earlier order and renewing its request to the administrative authorities of the British Government in India and the judicial and administrative authorities in India for assistance for repatriation of the wards of the companyrt to England and Wales, the companyntry of their habitual residence.
Immediately upon her and the childrens return to the jurisdiction of England and Wales the mother shall lodge her and the childrens passports and any other travel documents with the Tipstaff Tipstaffs Office, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London to be held by him to the Order of the Court.
Aggrieved by this order, Rajiv Majoo challenged it through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed in the Delhi High Court.
The maternal grandparents Dr. Srinivasan Muralidharan and Mrs. Rajkumari Murlidharan shall be joined as Respondents to this application as the 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively.
Liberty to the 1st Respondent mother, 2nd Respondent maternal Grandfather and 3rd Respondent maternal grandmother to apply to vary and or discharge this order or any part of it upon reasonable numberice to the Court and to the solicitors for the father.
Such statement to be filed and served by numberlater than 12 numbern on 13th December 2012.
The mother shall make the children available for skype or alternatively telephone companytact each Sunday and each Wednesday at 5.30 p.m. Indian time.
In violation of an order passed by the foreign companyrt, Arathi Bandi brought the child to India on 17th July, 2008.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted.
Since she did number return with the child to the jurisdiction of the foreign companyrt bailable warrants were issued for her arrest by the foreign companyrt.
On facts, the High Court was of opinion that since the children were in the custody of Mayura and she was their legal guardian, it companyld number be said that the custody was illegal in any manner.
A subsequent order placed the children in the care of Sushil Sharma and only visiting rights were given to Sarita Sharma.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court passed quite a few material orders in the case but Arathi Bandi did number abide by some of them resulting in the High Court issuing number bailable warrants on 25th January, 2011 for her arrest.
While both are of Indian origin, Surya is a resident and citizen of K. and at the time of marriage Mayura was a resident and citizen of India.
The facts The appellant hereafter referred to as Surya and respondent No.3 hereafter referred to as Mayura were married in Chennai on 27th January, 2000.
Such statement to be filed and served by numberlater than 12 numbern on 29th November 2012.
On or about 20th November, 2009 Bandi Rao initiated proceedings in the Andhra Pradesh High Court for a writ of habeas companypus seeking production and custody of the child to enable him to take the child to USA.
Later she acquired British citizenship and a British passport sometime in February 2004.
This order and two earlier orders passed by the High Court were then challenged by her in this companyrt.
There were some matrimonial differences between the companyple and proceedings in that regard were pending in a companyrt in Seattle, USA.
Feeling aggrieved, Surya has preferred the present appeal on or about 9th April, 2014.
The Madras High Court, in its decision, took the view that the welfare of the children and number the legal right of either of the parties was of paramount importance.
A rejoinder was filed by Surya on 13th December, 2012.
