REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4435 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9220 of 2010)

Ruchi Majoo

…Appellant

Versus

Sanjeev Majoo

…Respondents

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10362 of 2010)

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

Leave granted.

Conflict of laws and jurisdictions in the realm of private

international law is a phenomenon that has assumed greater

dimensions with the spread of Indian diasporas across the

globe. A large number of our young and enterprising

countrymen are today looking for opportunities abroad.

While intellectual content and technical skills of these

youngster find them lucrative jobs in distant lands, complete

assimilation with the culture, the ways of life and the social

values prevalent in such countries do not come easy. The

result is that in very many cases incompatibility of

temperament apart, diversity of backgrounds and inability to

accept the changed lifestyle often lead to matrimonial

discord that inevitably forces one or the other party to seek

redress within the legal system of the country which they

have adopted in pursuit of their dreams. Experience has also

shown that in a large number of cases one of the parties

may return to the country of his or her origin for family

support, shelter and stability. Unresolved disputes in such

situations lead to legal proceedings in the country of origin

as well as in the adoptive country. Once that happens issues

2

touching the jurisdiction of the courts examining the same

as also comity of nations are thrown up for adjudication.

The present happens to be one such case where legal

proceedings have engaged the parties in a bitter battle for

the custody of their only child Kush, aged about 11 years

born in America hence a citizen of that country by birth.

These proceedings included an action filed by the father-

respondent in this appeal, before the American Court

seeking divorce from the respondent-wife and also custody

of master Kush. An order passed by the Superior court of

California, County of Ventura in America eventually led to

the issue of a red corner notice based on allegations of child

abduction levelled against the mother who like the father of

the minor child is a person of Indian origin currently living

with her parents in Delhi. The mother took refuge under an

order dated 4^th April, 2009 passed by the Addl. District Court

at Delhi in a petition filed under Sections 7, 8, 10, 11 of the

3

Guardians and Wards Act granting interim custody of the

minor to her. Aggrieved by the said order the father of the

minor filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India before the High Court of Delhi. By the order impugned

in this appeal the High Court allowed that petition, set aside

the order passed by the District Court and dismissed the

custody case filed by the mother primarily on the ground

that the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the

same as the minor was not ordinarily residing at Delhi - a

condition precedent for the Delhi Court to exercise

jurisdiction. The High Court further held that all issues

relating to the custody of child ought to be agitated and

decided by the Court in America not only because that Court

had already passed an order to that effect in favour of the

father, but also because all the three parties namely, the

parents of the minor and the minor himself were American

citizens. The High Court buttressed its decision on the

principle of comity of courts and certain observations made

4

by this Court in some of the decided cases to which we shall

presently refer.

Three questions fall for determination in the above

backdrop. These are (i) Whether the High Court was justified

in dismissing the petition for custody of the minor on the

ground that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to

entertain the same, (ii) Whether the High