Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Rohith Thammana Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2022 cites

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

9. To answer the stated question and also on the question of jurisdiction we do not think it necessary to conduct a deep survey on the authorities This Court in Nithya Anand Raghawan 8 Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [(2017) 8 SCC 454], reiterated the principle laid in V. Ravi Chandran Vs. Union of India [(2010) 1 SCC 174] and further held thus :­ “In exercise of summary jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied and of the opinion that the proceedings instituted before it was in close proximity and filed promptly after the child was removed from his/her native state and brought within its territorial jurisdiction, the child has not gained roots here and further that it will be in the child’s welfare to return to his native state because of the difference in language spoken or social customs and contacts to which he/she has been accustomed or such other tangible reasons. In such a case the court need not resort to an elaborate inquiry into the merits of the paramount welfare of the child but leave that inquiry to the foreign court by directing return of the child. Be it noted that in exceptional cases the court can still refuse to issue direction to return the child to the native state and more particularly in spite of a pre­existing order of the foreign court in that behalf, if it is satisfied that the child’s return may expose him to a grave risk of harm”.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 152 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

V.Ravi Chandran vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 2009

9. To answer the stated question and also on the question of jurisdiction we do not think it necessary to conduct a deep survey on the authorities This Court in Nithya Anand Raghawan 8 Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [(2017) 8 SCC 454], reiterated the principle laid in V. Ravi Chandran Vs. Union of India [(2010) 1 SCC 174] and further held thus :­ “In exercise of summary jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied and of the opinion that the proceedings instituted before it was in close proximity and filed promptly after the child was removed from his/her native state and brought within its territorial jurisdiction, the child has not gained roots here and further that it will be in the child’s welfare to return to his native state because of the difference in language spoken or social customs and contacts to which he/she has been accustomed or such other tangible reasons. In such a case the court need not resort to an elaborate inquiry into the merits of the paramount welfare of the child but leave that inquiry to the foreign court by directing return of the child. Be it noted that in exceptional cases the court can still refuse to issue direction to return the child to the native state and more particularly in spite of a pre­existing order of the foreign court in that behalf, if it is satisfied that the child’s return may expose him to a grave risk of harm”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 57 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Dhanwanti Joshi vs Madhav Unde on 4 November, 1997

In Nitya Anand’s case this Court had also referred to the decision in Dhanwanti Joshi Vs. Madhav Unde [(1998) 1 SCC 112] which in turn was rendered after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Mckee Vs. Mckee [(1951) AC 352]. In Mckee’s case the Privy Council held that the order of the foreign court would yield to the welfare and that the comity of courts demanded not its enforcement, but its grave consideration. Though, India is not a signatory to Hague Convention of 1980, on the “Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”, this Court, virtually, imbibing the true spirit of the principle of parens patriae jurisdiction, went on to hold in Nithya Anand Raghavan’s case thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 88 - M J Rao - Full Document
1