Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Naveen Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2021
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
ITEM NO.301 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1341-1343/2019
NAVEEN SHARMA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 61506/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 61507/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)
Date : 31-05-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
For Appellant(s) Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv.
Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Shivangi, Adv.
Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Dr. Manish Singhvi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA No. 61506/2021
This application has been filed by Respondent No.2 for a direction to the appellant to get the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by this Court in the present appeal(s) mirrored in an order by the Signature Not Verified concerned court at Ontario, Canada. By an order dated 05.04.2021, Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2021.05.31 18:38:09 IST Reason: the appellant was permitted to take the child-Master Pranav Sharma from Ajmer on 01.06.2021 to Canada and deliver back the child to 2 Respondent No.2 at Ajmer on 30.06.2021. The said liberty granted to the appellant was subject to a condition that Respondent No.2 should be intimated about the phone number on which the child can be contacted. The appellant was directed to ensure telephonic discussion between the child and the mother twice a week. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention of “The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”, orders passed by this Court are not enforceable in Canada. She submitted that Respondent No.2 apprehends that the child might not be brought back to India inspite of the order dated 05.04.2021. Therefore, she sought for a direction that the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by this Court should be mirrored in an order to be passed by the competent court at Ontario, Canada. Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the very same request was made by Respondent No.2 when the matter was heard on 05.04.2021 which was not accepted by this Court. He further stated that sufficient immovable property security has been given pursuant to the order of this Court. He argued that the appellant’s credentials are not in doubt as on earlier occasions he has taken the child from the custody of the mother twice and returned the child back to the mother. There are no complaints about any delay in handing over the custody of the child to the mother.
We have also heard the appellant who submitted that the respondent has to pay the costs imposed on her by the Canadian Court. He also informed us that any application to be moved by 3 Respondent No.2 shall not be entertained unless such costs is paid. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the appellant in person, we are of the considered view that this application deserves to be allowed. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to move an application in a competent court at Ontario, Canada for mirroring the order dated 05.04.2021 in a proceeding in the said court. The Respondent No.2 shall bear all the costs and the appellant shall not be asked to share any costs towards legal expenses for moving such an application. Respondent No.2 shall hand over PIO Card (P-0689003) of the child to the appellant forthwith. A copy of the passport of the child-Master Pranav Sharma shall be given by the appellant to Respondent No.2.
I.As stand disposed of.
List the matters after summer vacations.
(GEETA AHUJA) (ANAND PRAKASH) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER