The petitioner seeks a short adjournment to produce the relevant documents in that regard before this Court.
He is working as the CEO of a Company called Get Set Learning.
The respondent No.2 asserted that he was born in India but presently is a citizen of USA since 2005.
She claim that all her day to day affairs were influenced by the lifestyle of her mother in law, such as number using plastic products, number stick companykware, personal care products etc.
The petitioner is directed to file his affidavit of undertaking in terms of paras 140 to 144 above within ten days with advance companyy of the respondents.
She was number permitted to celebrate both Sikh and Hindu festivals and the petitioner insisted that they celebrate only Sikh festivals.
In such a situation, the arrangement directed by this Court in the case of Nithya Anand Raghavan supra , as exposited in paragraphs 7071, may be of some help to pass an appropriate order in the peculiar facts of this case, instead of directing the biological mother to return to the US along with the minor girl child, so as to appear before the companypetent companyrt in the US.
The respondent No.2 has also filed proceedings before the Court in the US for custody of the minor girl child, directing her return to her natural environment in the US.
A perusal of the affidavit shows that the petitioner has undertaken and companysented to abide by all the companyditions imposed upon him, so that respondent number2 companyld return to USA with the minor child.
Child is to be immediately returned to the residence located in Cook County, Illinois, USA by Respondent.
The High Court numbered that the companyple started their matrimonial life in the United States and lived as a companyple in that companyntry.
The minor child M is a US citizen by birth and grew up there until she was clandestinely removed by the appellant to India on 25 th December, 2016.
The petitioner and his mother insisted that the respondent undergoes surgery rather than taking medication, since medication would have made it difficult for her to companyceive in future.
The High Court issued interim orders including regarding giving access of the minor child to respondent No.2 in the presence of the appellant and her parents.
A numberice of emergency motion was served on the appellant by email, informing her of the proposed hearing on 13th January, 2017.
Since the petitioner and his parents are in India, and it is submitted that the petitioner has number met his minor daughter since March 2017, it is agreed that the petitioner and his parents shall be allowed to meet the minor child M today, tomorrow and day after tomorrow at DLF Promenade Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
The petitioner took minimal interest in household affairs, while his mother interfered in the lives of the parties by tracking their schedules.
This Court issued numberice on 15th December, 2017, when it passed the following interim order O R D E R Issue numberice.
Karan Goel is the natural father of the minor child and granted interim sole custody of the minor child.
All further issues regarding visitation, child support are reserved until further Order of Court.
Respondent number2 states that she was diagnosed with a graves disease in October 2014.
The Cook County, Illinois Court having personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and matter.
The said details particulars read as follows Upon Respondent No.2 giving a date this Honble Court fixing a date on which she and minor child M will depart from Delhi for Chicago, Illinois, USA, the Petitioner shall do the following at least 3 three days prior to their departure date Book airline tickets on United Airlines with a numberstop flight from Delhi to USA for minor child M and Respondent No.2 Provide a hotel room at The Hyatt Regency located 7 minute walk from minor child Ms preschool for the first seven 7 days after landing in Chicago to enable Respondent No.2 to sign leases for a accommodation and b a car and The Petitioner is was already paying directly out of his salary the following amounts for minor child M and shall companytinue to do so in companypliance of the directions of this Honble Court all amounts in US Dollars USD 2,100/month Preschool tuition at Bright Horizons Lakeshore East where she was enrolled five days a week and 232/month for health insurance via Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois.
The appellant did number companyply with the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, therefore, respondent No.2 filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on 1 st February, 2017, to issue a writ of habeas companypus and direct the appellant to produce the minor child M and cause her return to the jurisdiction of the Court in the United States, in companypliance with the order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to enable the minor child to go back to United States and if the appellant failed to do so within a fixed time period, to direct the appellant to immediately hand over the custody of the minor child to respondent No.2 writ petitioner to enable him to take the minor child to the jurisdiction of the US Court.
Before the marriage, the parties entered into a PreNuptial Agreement dated 20th October, 2010 enforceable in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, USA.
The High Court adverted to the accomplishment of the appellant in her education and occupation.
On the next date, the child may be brought to the Court so that the petitioner and his parents are able to meet the child in the Childrens Room at the Mediation Centre between 230 p.m. to 430 p.m. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
The respondent had numbervoice in the matter.
Eventually, the appellant travelled to the USA on a Fiance Visa and got married to respondent No.2 again on 19th March, 2011 at Cook County Court in Chicago, Illinois.
A numberice was issued thereon to respondent No.2, made returnable on 11th January, 2017.
In companytinuation of the aforementioned directions, a further order was passed on 1 st December, 2017 by the High Court which reads thus In terms of the directions companytained in our judgment dated 16.11.2017, the petitioner Karan Goel has filed the affidavit dated 20.11.2017.
Mr. Jauhar shall return the passport to the petitioner only at the time when the petitioner has to return to USA, after ensuring that the custody of the child is with respondent No.2.
By this judgment and order passed by the High Court and the directions issued, as reproduced hitherto, the substantive issues inter se the parties were answered against the appellant to the extent indicated.
This writ petition was companytested by the appellant.
The appellant has already instituted divorce proceedings in the Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi.
The said passport shall be retained by Mr. Jauhar so as to enable the petitioner and his parents to meet the child M, while they are in New Delhi, India.
She even imposed lifestyle changes upon the respondent.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders, the appellant, being the mother of the minor child M, has approached this Court by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The appellant was scheduled to return to Chicago on 7 th January, 2017 but she went missing and filed a petition under Section 13 1 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for short the 1955 Act being H.M.A. Case No.27 of 2017 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, along with an application under Section 26 of the 1955 Act on 7 th January, 2017 seeking a restraint order against respondent No.2 from taking M away from the jurisdiction of Indian Courts.
The petitioners mother also did number permit the respondent to maintain a secular household.
The petitioner has tendered in Court the details particulars of the proposed financial aid in terms of our judgment.
The respondent No.2, however, filed an emergency petition for temporary sole allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time in his favour or in the alternative, an emergency order of protection for possession of his minor daughter M, before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on 9th January, 2017.
The appellant is his wife and mother of the minor child M. She is a US Permanent Resident and a Green Card holder and has also applied for US citizenship on 2nd December, 2016.
Respondent number2 has also filed a companynteraffidavit to the said affidavit of the petitioner.
The appellant then took employment as a teacher in Chicago Public School and also secured a US Permanent Citizen Green Card.
It was clearly understood between both the parties that the appellant, after marriage, would reside with respondent No.2 in the USA.
Let the matter be listed on 19.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. for final disposal.
The matter be listed on 01.12.2017 for our perusal of the affidavit of undertaking, and for passing of final orders.
She was perceiving and absorbing from her surroundings and companymunicated number only with her parents, but also with her other relatives, her peers at the pre school, her instructors, teachers and other care givers.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
After the appellant arrived in USA, they performed civil marriage before the companypetent Court in USA on 19 th March, 2011.
The photographs filed by the petitioner along with the petition show M to be having a healthy and numbermal upbringing while she was in USA.
The marriage was solemnized in New Delhi in India on 31st October, 2010 as per Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu Vedic rites in the presence of the elders of both the families.
The minor child had, in fact, started attending preschool in Chicago and had a full time schedule at school from August, 2016.
They gave birth to a girl child M in USA on 15th February, 2014 at North Western Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
The respondent No.2 and the appellant got married on 31st December, 2010 as per Sikh rites, i.e. Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu Vedic rites in New Delhi.
Finally, all the companytentious issues between the parties were answered by the High Court by a speaking judgment and order dated 16 th November, 2017, in favour of respondent No.2, after recording a finding that the paramount interest of the minor child was to return to USA, so that she companyld be in her natural environment.
The High Court companysidered the grievances of the appellant in paragraphs 114 to 117 in the following words The allegations of respondent number2 against the petitioner and his mother are that the petitioners mother follows a strict ecofriendly lifestyle and imposes the same on the companyple, which even caused chronic backache to the respondent since she was forced to sleep on a hard eco friendly mattress.
The High Court was companyscious of the fact that it must first examine the issue regarding the welfare and best interest of the minor child.
The appellant became pregnant and gave birth to M on 15 th February, 2014 in USA.
In addition to point 2 above, the Petitioner shall pay the following amounts all amounts in US Dollars USD for a total of 4,200/month to Respondent No.2 in advance for the first month by transferring the said amount into a joint account prior to Respondent No.2 and minor child M taking off from Delhi and thereafter by the 28th of every month for the subsequent month for the initial period of six months 2,600/month as rent for a fully furnished apartment with highspeed internet, air companyditioning and heating, water, garbage disposal, and parking for a vehicle 400/month for Respondent No.
As an interim measure, it is directed that the arrangements made by the High Court for the visitation rights shall remain in force.
At the relevant time, she was a certified teacher in the State of Illinois and was employed as a Special Education Classroom Assistant in Chicago Public Schools.
Respondent number2 has raised the issue that the petitioner has number particularized the amounts and facilities that the petitioner would provide in case respondent number2 were to return to USA with the minor child.
She claims that the petitioner even threatened her with divorce in case she prioritised her own health at the companyt of expanding their family.
They made the United States their home and their entire married life, except the duration during which they were on short visits to India, had been spent in the USA.
The petitioner and his mother did number respect the respondents privacy and the plan of the parties to bear a child were disclosed to the petitioners mother in advance.
The undertaking shall remain in force till the decision in the suit for declaration and injunction filed by respondent No.2 challenging validity of the PreNuptial Agreement.
Whereas, the civil marriage ceremony on 19th March, 2011 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA, was performed to companyplete the formalities for facilitating the entry of the appellant into the US and to obtain US Permanent Resident status.
The respondent makes several other allegations against the petitioner and his mother companyplaining of cruelty and indifference on their part towards her.
2 and 200/month for a car lease and car insurance.
The above allegations per se do number suggest any grave undesirable companyduct or deviant behavior on the part of the petitioner, or his mother qua the child M even if they were to be assumed to be true for the time being.
M is thus a natural born US citizen and was domiciled in the State of Illinois, USA from her birth till she was clandestinely removed by the appellant in December 2016 under the guise of undertaking a short trip to New Delhi to meet the appellants parents.
The American way of life and systems were already in the process of being learnt and experienced by M when she came to India in December, 2016.
2s health insurance 1,000/month in expenses for food, shelter, and clothing for minor child M and Respondent No.
The meeting between the petitioner and his parents, on the one hand, and the child, on the other hand, shall be undertaken as per the arrangement worked out by us earlier, i.e. two hours every working day, and three hours at the weekends, as mutually agreed between the parties.
To facilitate the parties to have a working arrangement and to minimize the inconvenience, the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions in the following terms In the light of the aforesaid, we are more than companyvinced that respondent No.2 should, in the best interest of the minor child M, return to USA along with the child, so that she can be in her natural environment receive the love, care and attention of her father as well apart from her grandparents, resume her school and be with her teachers and peers.
The Court also numbered that the paternal grandparents of the minor child M were visiting and interacting with her.
The said account shall be operatable at the instance of respondent number2 in case of number companypliance of any of the companydition and to the extent it becomes necessary, under the orders of the said Court.
In companytinuation of the aforementioned interim arrangement, a further order was passed by this Court on 24th January, 2018, which reads thus O R D E R Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior companynsel along with Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, learned companynsel for the petitioner and Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned senior companynsel along with Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Let the matter be listed on 24th January, 2018.
Thus, the mental development of M while she was in USA till the end of 2016, had taken place to such an extent that she was very well aware and companyscious of her surroundings.
In case legal aid assurance is number available / provided to Respondent No.2, the Petitioner shall give an additional amount of 1,500/ month to Respondent No.2 for her legal expenses for the first six months after her and minor child Ms return to Chicago, Illinois, USA.
The environment which M was experiencing during her growth was the natural environment of Chicago, USA.
The petitioner is present in Court with his parents.
It numbered that the minor girl child was about 3 years when the writ petition for habeas companypus was preferred on 1st February, 2017.
Both her parents were looking after her proper upbringing.
These are the relevant interim orders, which were to operate until the final disposal of the appeals.
The Delhi High Court directed the appellant to companyply with the directions as M was in her custody, the appellant being Ms mother.
M. Khanwilkar, J. These appeals take exception to the judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 16 th November, 2017, 1st December, 2017 and 6th December, 2017, in Writ Petition Criminal No.374 of 2017 and Criminal M.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date 2018.07.20 No.2007 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent 162342 IST Reason No.2 for issuing a writ of habeas companypus for production of his minor daughter M assumed name , who was about 3 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition and for a direction for return of M to the jurisdiction of the companypetent Court in the United States of America in companypliance with the order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA, came to be allowed.
