Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, P.S.TEJI, JJ.
DR. NAVTEJ SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 725 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No.3947 of 2017
Decided on : 06-03-2018
The Court directed the mother to return to the United States with the two minor children, as it was in their best interest to live with both parents in the country of their origin. The Court considered various factors, including the children's citizenship, their age and development, the parents' circumstances, and the principle of comity of courts. The Court also imposed certain conditions on the father, such as withdrawing any criminal proceedings against the mother and providing financial support for the children and the mother.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian-born citizen of the United States, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his two minor children, Ishnoor and Paramvir, who were presently in the custody of their mother, the respondent. The children were born in the United States and were American citizens. The petitioner and the respondent had gotten married in the United States and had established their matrimonial home there. However, the respondent had returned to India with the children in 2016 and had refused to return to the United States. The petitioner had obtained orders from the Superior Court of Connecticut granting him custody of the children, but the respondent had not complied with these orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the children were citizens of the United States and the petitioner had a right to seek their return. The Court also found that the respondent's custody of the children was illegal and unauthorized, as she had taken them out of the United States without the petitioner's consent or knowledge. The Court further found that it was in the best interest of the children to return to the United States and live with both parents.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 2. Whether the respondent's custody of the children was illegal and unauthorized. 3. Whether it was in the best interest of the children to return to the United States and live with both parents.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the children were citizens of the United States and the petitioner had a right to seek their return. The Court noted that the principle of comity of courts did not override the paramount consideration of the welfare of the children. 2. The Court held that the respondent's custody of the children was illegal and unauthorized, as she had taken them out of the United States without the petitioner's consent or knowledge. The Court found that the respondent had no legal basis for refusing to return to the United States with the children. 3. The Court held that it was in the best interest of the children to return to the United States and live with both parents. The Court considered various factors, including the children's citizenship, their age and development, the parents' circumstances, and the principle of comity of courts. The Court found that the children would benefit from living with both parents in the country of their origin.
Final Decision: The Court directed the mother to return to the United States with the two minor children. The Court also imposed certain conditions on the father, such as withdrawing any criminal proceedings against the mother and providing financial support for the children and the mother.
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 children, Ishnoor Kaur and Paramvir Singh, who are presently of ages five years and one year respectively. Ishnoor who was born in U.S.A on 27.08.2012 is a permanent resident and natural born citizen of U.S.A, while the minor Paramvir Singh was born in New Delhi on 12.09.2016. He is also seeking a direction for return of Ishnoor and Paramvir to the jurisdiction of the competent Courts in the United States of America (U.S.A.) in compliance with the orders dated 17.11.2016 and 25.01.2017 passed by the Superior Court, Judicial District Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Connecticut (CT), U.S.A. The children are presently under the custody of their mother, respondent No. 2.
Background
2. Petitioner is an Indian born citizen of U.S.A. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner and mother of Ishnoor and Paramvir respectively. She is also an Indian born citizen of U.S.A. Both hold American Passports.
3. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 got acquainted while studying in U.S.A in the year 2000. The petitioner was then pursuing a degree in Mathematics, Computer Science and simultaneously completing his studies in pre-medical. Respondent no. 2 was also pursuing a degree in Computer Science from Hunter College, U.S.A. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 got enrolled in a dental school in the years 2003 and 2005 respectively. The petitioner and respondent no. 2 got married on 22.08.2006 in New York as per U.S. Civil laws and thereafter obtained a certificate of registration of their marriage dated 22.08.2006 from the Marriage License Bureau, The City of New York, U.S.A. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 subsequently, in a religious ceremony remarried on 23.12.2007 at New Delhi (Delhi), India. The respondent no. 2 thereafter obtained the citizenship of U.S.A. post her marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 continued to reside in their permanent residence and matrimonial home situated in Connecticut, U.S.A. from 22.08.2006 onwards.
4. The petitioner along with respondent no. 2, post obtaining degrees in Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) Dental Science, set up a joint dental practice under the name “South End Dental Centre, PC” (“organisation”) at Stamford, CT, U.S.A. in 2011, under a professional business partnership. The petitioner is working in the capacity of President and Secretary of the said organisation, while the Respondent No. 2 is the Vice-President and Treasurer of the same.
5. Ishnoor - the first child of the parties, was born on 27.08.2012 at Stamford Hospital, Connecticut, U.S.A. The petitioner submits that Ishnoor is a natural born US citizen and has been domiciled in the State of Connecticut, USA since her birth.
6. The petitioner submits that since respondent no. 2 did not wish to reside with his parents – who are also residing in U.S.A., a separate accommodation was leased by her exclusively in her name at Stamford, CT and later at Norwalk, CT, valid upto 21.12.2016. The petitioner submits that the lease of the same property has currently been renewed by him and up to 31.12.2017.
7. The petitioner along with respondent no. 2 and their daughter Ishnoor arrived in Delhi on 26.01.2016 to attend the wedding of the brother of Respondent No. 2 which was fixed for 21.02.2016. The petitioner submits that they were all scheduled to return to U.S.A. on 04.03.2016 on a pre-booked return flight. However, on the date of return, Respondent No. 2 refused to go back to U.S.A and thereafter he was left with no option but to return alone to U.S.A. on 05.03.2016. He submits that despite his best efforts to get in touch with the respondent via emails, phone calls, and family requests, the Respondent No. 2 – without giving any reason or justification, refused to return to U.S.A. The petitioner further submits that their minor son – Paramvir was thereaf
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
