Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.34 seconds)
Yashita Sahu vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2020 cites

Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986

14. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra) wherein this Court was dealing with a case where the wife was an American citizen whereas the husband was a citizen of India. They got married in America and a child was born to them in the year 1978. In 1980, differences arose between the couple and the wife filed a petition for divorce. The jurisdictional court in America had dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce on 23.04.1982 and by the same decree it was directed that the wife would have the care, custody and control of the child till he reaches the age of 18 years. The husband was 11 given visitation rights. Taking advantage of the weekend visitation rights, the husband picked up the child from school on 11.01.1986 and brought him to India. The wife filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Not only was the petition entertained, but the same was allowed and we would like to refer to certain important observations of this Court in Para 8:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 206 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Nithya Anand Raghavan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2017

16. We are of the considered view that the doctrine of comity of courts is a very healthy doctrine. If courts in different jurisdictions do not respect the orders passed by each other it will lead to contradictory orders being passed in different jurisdictions. No hard and fast guidelines can be laid down in this regard and each case has to be decided on its own facts. We may however again reiterate that the welfare of the child will always remain the paramount consideration. Welfare of the child – the paramount consideration
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 152 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Lahari Sakhamuri vs Sobhan Kodali on 15 March, 2019

In other words, even in the matter of a summary inquiry, it is open to the court to decline the relief of return of the child to the country from where he/she was removed irrespective of a pre­existing order of return of the child by a foreign court. In an elaborate inquiry, the court is obliged to examine the merits as to where the paramount interests and welfare of the child lay and reckon the fact of a pre­existing order of the foreign court for return of the child as only one of the circumstances. In either case, the crucial question to be considered by the court (in the country to which the child is removed) is to answer the issue according to the child’s welfare. That has to be done bearing in mind the totality of facts and circumstances of each case independently. Even on close scrutiny of the several decisions pressed before us, we do not find any contra view in this behalf. To put it differently, the principle of comity of courts cannot be given primacy or more weightage for deciding the matter of custody or for return of the child to the native State.” Thereafter, another bench of this Court in Lahari Sakhamuri (supra), while interpreting the judgment in Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra) held as follows :­ “41…the doctrines of comity of courts, intimate connect, orders passed by foreign courts having jurisdiction in the matter regarding custody of the minor child, citizenship of the parents and the child etc., cannot override the consideration of the best interest and the welfare of the child and the direction to return the child to the foreign 14 jurisdiction must not result in any physical, mental, psychological, or other harm to the child.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 85 - A Rastogi - Full Document

S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working As ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003

We are also satisfied that the petitioner who is the mother, is full of genuine love and affection for the child and she can be safely trusted to look after him, educate him and attend in every possible way to his proper upbringing. The child has not taken root in this country and he is still accustomed and acclimatized to the conditions and environments obtaining in the place of his origin in the United States of America. The child’s presence in India is the result of an illegal act of abduction and the father who is guilty of the said act cannot claim any advantage by stating that he has already put the child in some 12 school in Pune. The conduct of the father has not been such as to inspire confidence in us that he is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the custody and guardianship of the child for the present.” In V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.5 it was held as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1