The court retains jurisdiction over child custody cases, ensuring contempt findings for disobedience of court orders apply even to biological parents, affirming the principle of parens patriae.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.

Crl M.A. 34467/2019

Present application has been filed by the petitioner Ms. Kiran Lohia to restrain her father-in-law, respondent no. 5 from leaving the jurisdiction of this Court and for a direction to respondent no. 5 to deposit his passport with this Court.

Keeping in view the fact that the CBI has already opened a Lookout Circular (In short, `LOC') against respondent no. 5, the present application is infructuous and it accordingly stands disposed of. In the event of change in circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

Crl. M.A. 34316/2019 & 34924/2019

While Crl. M.A. 34316/2019 has been filed seeking to restrain respondent no.6 (petitioner's mother-in-law) and respondent no.7 (petitioner's sister-in-law) from leaving the jurisdiction of this Court and to further direct respondent nos.4 to 9 to deposit their passports with this Court, Crl.M.A.34924/2019 has been filed to keep the LOC issued against respondent nos. 6 and 7 vide order dated 28th August, 2019 alive even after they have deposited their passports with this Court and to direct respondent no.2 to detain respondent nos.6 and 7 or in the alternative direct respondent nos.6 and 7 to report to Vasant Vihar Police Station daily.

The argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that respondent no. 4 as well as his parents and sister constitute a family which works in unison and supports each other. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that visitation rights in respect of minor child Baby Raina had been obtained by respondent no. 4 from the learned Predecessor Bench vide order dated 1st May, 2018 in W.P.(Crl.) 357/2018 not for himself alone but for his parents also. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner had heavily relied upon the order dated 1st May, 2018. The relevant portion of the said order dated 1st May, 2018 in W.P.(Crl.) 357/2018 is reproduced hereinbelow:

"8. On 13.03.2018, the order dated 08.03.2018 was slightly modified inasmuch, as, the child was to remain with the petitioner on Sundays, and was to be handed over to respondent No. 4 and his parents on Saturdays in modification of clauses (vi) and (vii) of the aforesaid conditions. This arrangement is continuing in operation presently....."

Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 submitted that the said respondents had no involvement in the actions of respondent no. 4 and that the said respondents were not involved in the marital life and affairs of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and that the averments in the present applications were contrary to petitioner's own pleadings in W.P.(Crl.) 357/2018. Learned senior counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 contended that the said respondents were not a party to the W.P.(Crl.) 357/2018 or to the parenting plan of the minor child Baby Raina. Learned senior counsel emphasised that respondent no. 7 was an unmarried, independent working lady who had her business establishment abroad.

In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent no. 4 in a custody application for Baby Raina filed before the Dubai Court had named respondent no. 6 as a woman who was suitable to be the custodian of Baby Raina. The relevant portion of the custody application filed by respondent no.4 before the Dubai Court is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Article (144) of the Personal Status Law stipulates:

If the person undertaking the custody is a man:

He must have a woman who is suitable to be custodian.

He must be a first degree relative (mahram) to the m