SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 2309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
ANAND RAGHAVAN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR – Respondents
W.P. (CRL) No. 247 of 2016
Decided On : 08-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar with Ms. Aakriti Dawar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel, Mr. Amrit Singh, Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, Ms. Arpita Rai, Advocates for the State along with SI Amit Sharma, P.S. Sarita Vihar.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of his minor daughter Nethra who has been illegally and unlawfully removed from the custody of the petitioner from the United Kingdom (UK).

2. Petitioner is the father and the natural guardian of Nethra who is six years of age. As per the petition, the petitioner is a UK citizen and holds a British Passport. The petitioner came to UK in the year 2003 as a student and since 2005 he has been working in UK Petitioner married respondent no.2 on 30.11.2006 through a registered marriage and a formal wedding ceremony took place on 22.01.2007. Petitioner and respondent no.2 thereafter travelled to UK on 30.01.2007 with the intention to live in the UK permanently. Respondent no.2 was granted permanent residency and indefinite leave to remain in UK on 05.05.2010. The petitioner claims that respondent no.2 is a Masters in Communication, has a vast work experience in India and had a regular employment in UK from March, 2008 to June, 2010 with Media Reach Advertising Company, UK During her employment in UK, respondent no.2 was earning more than 25,000 pounds per annum.

3. The child was born as per the wishes of petitioner and respondent no.2 in India on 07.08.2009. The petitioner was not present at the time of Nethra's birth but came to India on 12.08.2009 and spent three weeks in India. The petitioner again came back to India in December, 2009 and it was planned that both the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall return to UK together the next month. However, shortly before the departure, the respondent no.2 decided to remain in India for a further period of two months. The petitioner returned to England in early January, 2010 for his work reasons. The petitioner again traveled to India in March 2010 and accompanied Nethra and respondent No.2 to England in the same month. Although the relationship was largely harmonious, the petitioner noticed almost immediately that the attitude of respondent No.2 towards the petitioner had changed and respondent no.2 seemed distant towards the petitioner. On 08.08.2010, the respondent no.2 booked a ticket for her and her minor child Nethra to travel to India on 28.08.2010. Respondent no.2 gave no sign about when she would return to England. This was around the time of Nethra's first birthday, a very auspicious occasion which is by tradition always celebrated at the home of child's father. The respondent no.2, on the other hand, made arrangements to celebrate Nethra's first birth in Delhi with her family rather than with petitioner in London and after much persuasion and after her father's intervention, the petitioner was permitted to celebrate this birthday with Nethra in the UK but the respondent No.2 told the petitioner that she would never allow petitioner to take Nethra to visit his parents in future. As per the petitioner, the petitioner's family members have not seen Nethra since December, 2009.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner asked the respondent no.2 many times to return to England for the sake of the minor child so that the minor child would have a stable upbringing with both the parents being there to look after the welfare and well being of the minor child. As a result, the respondent No.2 alongwith the minor child came to UK in December, 2011 and decided to admit the minor child in a proper school in UK so as to educate the child in UK. The said decision was taken jointly by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 for the betterment and providing good education to the minor daughter in UK. Again around in the month of January, 2012, the minor child started attending nursery school in the UK and continued attending the nursery until starting regular school at the age of 4 years in September 2013 at Oxford High School. The respondent no.2 during this time remained tot


























































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top