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

2017 Supreme(Del) 4101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
K G – Petitioner
Versus
State of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 374 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No.2007 of 2017
Decided On : 16-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar & Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) and Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate along with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS-Vasant Kunj (South), Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Arpita Rai, Mr. Ranjay N. & Ms. Saumya Maheshwari, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner herein has preferred the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his minor daughter, M G, who is presently three years eight months of age and is a permanent resident and natural born citizen of USA. He is also seeking a direction for return of M to the jurisdiction of the competent Courts in the United States of America in compliance with the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA. The child is presently under the custody of her mother, Respondent No. 2.

Background

2. Petitioner is an Indian born citizen of USA since 2005. He is working as the CEO of a company called GetSet Learning. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner and mother of M. She has the status of a US Permanent Resident and is a ‘Green Card’ holder, who has also applied for US Citizenship on 2.12.2016. She is a certified teacher in the State of Illinois, and was employed as a Special Education Classroom Assistant in Chicago Public Schools. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 got married on 31.10.2010 as per Sikh rites, i.e. Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu vedic rites in New Delhi, India.

3. The petitioner submits that it was understood between both the parties that the respondent no. 2 would come and live with the petitioner in the USA. Respondent No.2 applied for and obtained a Fiancée Visa from the US embassy, showing herself as “Single (Never Married)” and her name as “K L” with her address as that of parents, in the DS-230 Form.

4. After obtaining the Fiancée Visa on 03.03.2011, the respondent no. 2 travelled to the USA and got married with the petitioner again on 19.03.2011 at Cook County Court in Chicago, Illinois. A reception was also thrown for the couple in Ohio, USA by the family of the petitioner. Before the marriage, the parties entered into a Prenuptial Agreement dated 20.10.2010, enforceable in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, USA.

5. Respondent no. 2 adapted herself in her new home by changing her surname; applying for a State of Illinois Teaching certificate, and; working for gain as a teacher in Chicago Public Schools. She also secured a US Permanent Citizen Green card.

6. Respondent no. 2 became pregnant with M towards end of July 2013, and M was born on 15.02.2014. The petitioner submits that both the parties wanted M to be born in USA and attain US citizenship. He submits that M is a natural born US citizen and has been domiciled in the State of Illinois, USA since her birth. He relies upon M’s US birth certificate dated 28.03.2014, and her passport issued by the US Department of State on 21.05.2014 as evidence of the same.

7. Until December 2016, M remained in Chicago with her parents. She was being taken care of by not just her parents, but her paternal grandparents as well when respondent no. 2 was working. M started pre-school from July 2016 onwards, and was scheduled to join a three year olds’ classroom w.e.f. 09.01.2017.

8. On 25.12.2016, petitioner along with the respondent no. 2 and M left for New Delhi, India for a short trip. They stayed with respondent no. 2’s parents. They were scheduled to head back to Chicago on 07.01.2017. The petitioner submits that 11 hours before their departure on 07.01.2017, the respondent no. 2 with their daughter went missing. He submits that he tried looking for the two of them everywhere but could not find them. He spoke to his in-laws about their whereabouts and even tried calling respondent no. 2 on her cell phone but got no response. Because he had already pre-booked his flight to Chicago, he left.

9. Respondent no. 2 filed a petition under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, HMA No. 27/17 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, along with an application under section 26 of HMA on 07.01.2017 seeking a restraint order against the petitioner from taking away M from the jurisdiction of Indian Courts. Notice was issued to the petitioner ret

















































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top