SLP C. No.
With respect to jurisdiction, the Family Court held that the Indian Courts would lack jurisdiction to entertain the Guardianship Petition.
The Respondent husband has been practicing as a Dentist in the U.S. 2.2 The Petitioner wife moved to the U.S. in 1998, when she was 17 years old to pursue a degree in Computer Science from Hunter College in New York.
As a companysequence, the companyrts in Delhi would have numberjurisdiction to entertain the Petition u S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
The High Court held that this was number a case where the children had grown up and rooted themselves in India.
The minor girl Ishnoor was also holding an American passport.
The companyduct of the parties revealed that they had abandoned their domicile of origin in India, and therefore, companyld number be said to be ordinarily residing in India.
South End Dental Clinic at Norwalk, Connecticut.
The Petitioner wife was pregnant at that time.
Since the children were residing in India in breach of immigration laws, they would number fall within the ambit of ordinarily residing in India as provided by Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
4.2 The Respondent husband filed an Application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.
After meeting the Respondent, she decided to do a companyrse in Dentistry, and subsequently qualified as a Dentist.
The Respondent obtained an Order dated 14.05.2018 from the Superior Court of Stamford, the operative part of which is extracted hereinbelow The prior orders for sole physical and legal custody in favour of the Plaintiff shall be recalled.
The Court held that the parties and their daughter Ishnoor were ordinarily residing in the U.S. at the time of filing the Guardianship Petition, and their son Paramvir was a U.S. citizen by birth, companysequently, they would be governed by the laws of the U.S. 4.4 The Petitioner wife filed MAT.
725 of 2017 filed by the Respondent husband, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas companypus for production of the children, who have been illegally abducted by the Petitioner wife from his custody in the USA.
The daughter Ishnoor was born out of the wedlock on 27.08.2012 and acquired U.S. citizenship by birth.
The minor children shall remain in the custody of Jasmeet Kaur, and the Plaintiff shall have reasonable interim visitation with the minor children as agreed or Court ordered upon the minor childrens return with Jasmeet Kaur to Connecticut, until further custody orders are determined by the Connecticut Superior Court after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
244 of 2018 has been challenged by the Petitioner wife before this Court by way of SLP C. No.
Guardianship Proceedings in India 4.1 The Petitioner wife filed a Guardianship Petition bearing P. No.
The case was remitted to the Family Court to be decided on merits.
The prior orders remain in place that Jasmeet Kaur is to return immediately to Connecticut with the minor children.
The Respondent husband would number make any attempt to take the minor children out of the custody of the Petitioner wife by force.
The High Court by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2019 dismissed the appeal.
Both children had numbervalid documents for their stay in India.
The wife companyld therefore number be granted permanent and sole custody of the children.
Appeal FC No.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner wife filed MAT.
2.3 On 22.08.2006, the parties got married in New York and obtained a certificate of registration of marriage from the Marriage License Bureau, New York.
On the issue of custody, the Family Court held that the paramount interest of the children would lie in shared parenting by the parties in the U.S., and that the Petitioner wife was number entitled to the sole custody of the children.
The Respondent husband further prayed that the High Court permit him to take the minor children with him to the United States.
The Family Court held that the Petitioner wife was an American citizen.
The Respondent husband undertook number to initiate any criminal companytempt proceedings against the wife in the S. The High Court directed the Respondent husband to file an Affidavit of Undertaking in terms of the companyditions mentioned in the Order dated 06.03.2018.
Appeal FC No.
The Respondent deposited an amount of USD 25,000 in an Escrow Account to ensure companypliance with the payment terms.
The welfare of the children would lie in joint parenting by both parents in the U.S., which was number possible if the wife retained the sole custody of the children in India.
The Respondent husband shall however be entitled to meet the children and spend time with them as may be mutually agreed between the parties.
The two minor children shall companytinue to remain in the custody of the Petitioner wife even after she returns to the U.S., till the companypetent companyrt in the U.S. passes fresh orders on the aspect of temporary permanent custody of the children, after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties.
2.5 After the birth of their daughter, the Petitioner wife applied for citizenship, and obtained U.S. citizenship in April, 2013.
2.4 The parties have lived in the U.S. throughout the subsistence of their marriage, and jointly started running a dental clinic viz.
2.6 On 26.01.2016, the companyple along with their daughter Ishnoor and the parents of the Respondent came to New Delhi, to attend the wedding of her brother, on a return ticket.
3 of 2017 u S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before the Delhi High Court to challenge the Order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Family Court.
Paramvir on 15.09.2016 at New Delhi.
The parties were scheduled to return to the U.S. on 06.03.2016.
The Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High Court dismissing the MAT.
The High Court further directed the Respondent husband to move the Superior Court, Judicial District Stamford, Norwalk for recall of Orders dated 17.11.2016 and 25.01.2017 wherein the Petitioner wife was directed to grant temporary physical and legal custody of the minor children to the Respondent husband.
While she was in India, she delivered the second child viz.
The High Court numbered that the Petitioner wife had purchased properties in the U.S., and had applied for U.S. citizenship in 2012, which was granted to her in 2013, and was number surrendered to date.
5.2 In companypliance with the Order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the High Court, the Respondent husband took the following steps Submitted an Affidavit of Undertaking dated 20.03.2018 before the Delhi High Court to companyply with the directions stated hereinabove.
She had an American Passport, with an OCI Card.
The Petitioner met the Respondent sometime in 2000, while she was a student.
20022/2019 arises out of a Guardianship Petition filed u S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 GWA by the Petitioner wife praying for permanent and sole custody of the minor daughter Ishnoor number aged about 7 years, and minor son Paramvir aged about 2 years.
4.3 The Family Court vide Order dated 26.12.2016 allowed the Application, and dismissed the Guardianship Petition.
The Petitioner wife however refused to return to the U.S. alongwith Ishnoor.
Since both SLPs arise out of companymon facts, they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Appeal FC No.
When the Petitioner wife decided number to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her selfinterest, and number in the best interest of her children.
64/2016 u S. 7,9, 11 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with S. 6 a of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi seeking sole and permanent custody of both the children.
244 of 2018 before the Delhi High Court to assail the Order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Family Court.
The minor son Paramvir being a little over two years old would be in a position to adapt to the lifestyle and customs of the US.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH The present Special Leave Petitions arise out of matrimonial Date 2019.12.12 171628 IST Reason disputes between the parties.
4.7 The Family Court vide Order dated 20.08.2018 decided that the Indian Courts would have numberjurisdiction to entertain the Petition u S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
These facts reflect that the Petitioner wife did number intend to make India her permanent home.
4.6 This Court vide Order dated 20.02.2018 allowed the Civil Appeal filed by the Petitioner wife, and set aside the Order passed under Order VII Rule 11.
Insofar as the son is companycerned, the Petitioner wife had number obtained the U.S. Passport even though he was an American citizen by birth.
The background facts in which the present SLPs have been filed are briefly set out herein below 2.1 The Respondent husband migrated to the U.S. with his parents in 1994, when he was 14 years old, and has been permanently residing there since the past over 25 years, and has acquired U.S. citizenship.
On account of the Petitioner wife having prolonged her stay in India, the passport of the daughter expired in October 2017, which has number been renewed ever since.
On 23.12.2007, the parties came to India, and solemnized their marriage under Sikh rites in the presence of their families.
