IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R.N. MANJULA, JJ.
Girish Arunagiri, American Citizen - Appellant
Versus
Mahalakshmi Senthil Nathan, American Citizen & Others - Respondent
H.C.P. No. 654 of 2021
Decided on : 28-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - 7 Rule 11 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 14 - Section 9(1) - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - POCSO Act. - Foreigners Act Section 14 - Habeas Corpus - Minimum uncontroverted facts that resulted in dispute betwixt spouses qua custody of their two daughters and are as under - Father are leading surgeons - After completing his higher education in States was gainfully employed there since - He married for visa purposes on their marriage was customarily solemnized at Coimbatore Tamil Nadu - Couple left for United States shortly thereafter - Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable to secure custody of two children and direct their return to United States Court find that issue is no longer res integra, and is settled by a decision of Supreme Court in wherein it is observed thus – Held, When a writ of habeas corpus is sought to direct return of a child to another country Court would also examine which of two Courts domestic or foreign would have the most intimate connect with minor for purposes of securing child’s safety and well-being - In Supreme Court dealt with an identical case of spouses who had set up their matrimonial home in England - Their child was a British citizen - Court, Speaking through Chief Justice opined thus – Court go no further than to advise to return to United States with her children within a period of six weeks from today – Court further direct that if returns to United States with her two children within aforesaid period shall make all arrangements for accommodating and children in their own house and also to bear their travel expenses (including air tickets). If is not willing to stay in matrimonial house for any personal reasons shall make all arrangements for stay at place of her choice at a reasonable cost – Court make it clear that observations made by us in order are only for limited purpose of facilitating a summary enquiry for consideration of prayer for habeas corpus and will have no bearing in proceeding before Maryland Court which will obviously,be decided on its own merits - Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the ninth respondent, viz., the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Tamil Nadu, to produce the bodies of respondents 1 to 3 before this Court by removing them from the custody of the fourth and fifth respondents, for their due safe return to the United States of America, since they are the citizens of the said country.)
1. This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by the father seeking the return of his two minor children to the United States of America. For the sake of convenience, Girish Arunagiri, the petitioner herein and Mahalakshmi Senthil Nathan, the first respondent herein, who are spouses, will be referred to as Arunagiri and Mahalakshmi, respectively.
2. The minimum uncontroverted facts that resulted in the dispute betwixt the spouses, viz., Arunagiri and Mahalakshmi, qua custody of their two daughters, viz., Shakthi Girish and Sharadha Girish, are as under:
2.1 Arunagiri’s father and Mahalakshmi’s father are leading orthopaedic surgeons in Tamil Nadu. After completing his higher education in the United States, Arunagiri was gainfully employed there since February 2004. He married Mahalakshmi, for visa purposes, on 14.06.2006. On 15.01.2007, their marriage was customarily solemnized at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The couple left for the United States shortly thereafter.
2.2 Their first daughter Shakthi Girish was born in India on 15.01.2009 and their second daughter Sharadha Girish was born in the United States on 07.09.2017, on account of which, the latter became a naturalised American citizen. Subsequently, on 14.02.2020, Arunagiri, Mahalakshmi and Shakthi Girish became American citizens and acquired American passports.
2.3 The family was living in the State of Maryland. Mahalakshmi left the United States on 11.09.2020 with her two children and reached Coimbatore on 13.09.2020 for visiting her ailing grandmother. Arunagiri came to India on 18.12.2020 and went to meet Mahalakshmi and his children in Mahalakshmi’s natal home in Coimbatore on 21.12.2020.
2.4 According to Arunagiri, he was not able to meet his children and his father-in-law told him that he has no intention of sending his daughter and granddaughters to the United States.
2.5 According to Mahalakshmi, Arunagiri came to her house in Coimbatore on 21.12.2020, picked up a quarrel with her, demanding partition of her parents’ properties and in that quarrel, he manhandled her and their children. In this connection, a police complaint was lodged by Mahalakshmi to the A.W.P.S. (West), Coimbatore City, which was registered on 15.01.2021 in CSR No.16 of 2021.
2.6 Arunagiri returned to the United States on 10.01.2021. When he learnt that Mahalakshmi had admitted their elder daughter Shakthi Girish in a school in Coimbatore, it became clear to him that Mahalakshmi has no idea of returning to the United States and so, he issued a legal notice on 18.01.2021 through his advocate, to Mahalakshmi, informing her of his intention to initiate custody proceedings in America in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (for brevity “the Maryland Court”). Mahalakshmi replied to the notice on 20.01.2021 and on the same day, i.e., on 20.01.2021, Arunagiri filed a petition for custody in the Maryland Court.
2.7 On 21.01.2021, Hon’ble Bibi M. Berry, Judge of the Maryland Court, directed Arunagiri and Mahalakshmi, to appear via video conferencing in her Court. After hearing them extensively, the learned judge passed an order directing Mahalakshmi to bring the children to the United States by 04.02.2021. A copy of the order was emailed to both Arunagiri and Mahalakshmi.
2.8 On 02.02.2021, Mahalakshmi filed a petition in G.W.O.P. No.316 of 2021 in the Family Court, Coimbatore, for guardianship of her children invoking Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Further, on 05.02.2021, she initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Viol
Surya Vadanan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2015) 5 SCC 450]
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw & anr. (1987) 1 SCC 42
Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2017) 8 SCC 454
Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan Kodali (2019) 7 SCC 311
Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2020) 3 SCC 67
Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar vs. Bhavna Lall [(2021) 2 SCC 755]
Surinder Kaur Sandhu vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu [(1984) 3 SCC 698
V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) vs. Union of India and others [(2010) 1 SCC 174
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.