Back
High Court of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, V.K. JAIN, JJ.
Surjeet Singh
Versus
State & Another
W.P.(Crl.) 494 of 2010
Decided On : 27-04-2012
Habeas Corpus - Custody Dispute - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Care of Children Act, 2004, Domestic Violence Act, 1995 (New Zealand) - The court considered the custody dispute of minor children in a habeas corpus petition. The court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Care of Children Act, 2004, and emphasized the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child. The court also considered the principle of comity of Courts and the orders passed by foreign courts, giving due weight to the welfare of the child and not enforcing foreign judgments unconditionally. The court found that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, even in a case involving the principle of comity of courts. The court also highlighted the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 1995 (New Zealand) and the impact of the father's behavior on the psychological well-being of the children.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought custody of his minor children who were brought to India by the respondent. The respondent alleged danger to her life and her children's lives if she returned to New Zealand. The children were less than 5 years old when brought to India, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, provided that the custody of a minor child under 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother. The respondent's allegations of cruelty and harassment by the petitioner were also considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it would not be in the interest of the children to be sent back to New Zealand due to the potential harm they might face, considering the behavior of the petitioner. The court emphasized the paramount consideration of the welfare of the children and the impact of the father's behavior on their psychological well-being. The court also directed the petitioner to be entitled to visit the children in India under certain conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the custody dispute of minor children, the application of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the consideration of the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, even in a case involving the principle of comity of courts. The court must consider the question of custody having regard to the welfare of the child, and the weight and persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the circumstances of each case. The court also highlighted the impact of the father's behavior on the psychological well-being of the children.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by finding that it was not a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the respondent to return to New Zealand with the children or to give custody of the children to the petitioner. The court directed the petitioner to be entitled to visit the children in India under certain conditions.
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of habeas corpus to the respondents to produce minor children viz. Jasmine Kaur and Vaani Kaur, daughters of the petitioner before this Court and giving their custody to him.
Respondent No.2 before this Court Mrs. Harpreet Kaur is the wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized in India on 17.11.2003. The petitioner was a permanent resident of New Zealand prior to his marriage. In February, 2004, both of them came to live in New Zealand. Respondent No.2 also acquired permanent residency of New Zealand in the year 2006. The petitioner became a New Zealand citizen in March, 2008. Both the children were born in New Zealand and consequently acquired citizenship of that country.
The petitioner, respondent No.2 as well as both their children came to India on 6.3.2009. The petitioner had planned to return to New Zealand on 10.4.2009, whereas respondent No.2 was to return on 12.6.2009 along with both the children. It is alleged that respondent No.2 refused to return to New Zealand and also retained the custody of the children with her, in India. On 25.2.2010 the petitioner preferred a petition before the High Court of New Zealand under the provisions of Care of Children Act, 2004, for placing his minor children under the guardianship of the Court at New Zealand. Vide order dated 12.3.2010, the High Court of New Zealand directed that both the children be placed under the guardianship of that Court. Respondent No.2 was directed to ensure that the children were returned to the jurisdiction of New Zealand court within two weeks. Since respondent No.2 did not comply with the order passed by the New Zealand court, this petition has been filed seeking production and custody of the children.
2. The petition has been opposed by respondent No.2. In her counter-affidavit she has alleged that she apprehends danger/threat to her life and lives of her children, if she goes to New Zealand. She also fears harassment by the petitioner, who is alleged to be violent by nature and guilty of treating her with utmost cruelty on numerous occasions. She has also submitted that the children are not in wrongful custody, she being their mother and having lawfully brought them to India along with the petitioner. It has been pointed out that this is not a case where children have been brought to India in disobedience of an order of the foreign court. It is further submitted that the children being girls of tender age and respondent No.2, being their mother, the respondent No.2 is in a better position to take care of them. Referring to the e-mails sent by the petitioner to her and the telephonic conversation between them, respondent No.2 has alleged that in the light of his behavior, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court.
3. It is an undisputed fact that both the children were brought to India jointly by the petitioner and respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner left for New Zealand, respondent No.2 as well as children stayed back in India with his consent though they were scheduled to return to New Zealand on 12.6.2009 and their air-tickets for the travel had been booked in advance. The elder daughter viz. Jasmine Kaur was born on 16.9.2004 and the younger child Vaani Kaur was born on 3.1.2008. Both these children were less than 5 years old when they were brought to India on 6.3.2009. Even as on today, Jasmine Kaur is about 7 ½ years old, whereas Vaani Kaur is about 04 years old. Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which applies to the parties, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the custody of a minor child, who has not completed the age of 05 years shall ordinarily be with the mother. Hence, on the date these children were brought to India, respondent No.2 being their mother, was lawfully entitled to their custody. She cont
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
