(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19423 = 2024(2) L.A.R. 238
Decided on: 05.08.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv., Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv., Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv., Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv., Ms. Nivedita Sudheer, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Rishi Yadav, Adv., Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR, Mr. Chandratney, Adv., Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv.
A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of children -- Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Effort to secure temporary custody of the children through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, especially when both the children are girls and are living with their mother, can neither be entertained nor appreciated.
(Para 1)
B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 13(f) -- Custody of children – Order of Foreign court – Compliance of -- Compliance to an order claimed to have obtained from the District Court, Family Court Division, State of Minnesota, U.S.A -- A foreign judgment violative of Indian law is not conclusive between the parties and thus, Indian Courts are not bound to follow it -- This principle is also statutorily recognized by Section 13(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Hence, the aforesaid order is not binding on the respondents or the children.
(Para 3)
ORDER
1. Having heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not approached the US Courts or Indian Courts with clean hands. In any case, his effort to secure temporary custody of the children through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, especially when both the children are girls and are living with their mother, can neither be entertained nor appreciated.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, with a direction that the interim arrangement made by this Court shall continue to operate as an interim measure till the custody issue is resolved by the court of competent jurisdiction in India.
3. It is further clarified that no attempt shall be made or allowed by the Indian authorities or the Indian Courts (except this Court) to affect the status of the children or their mother, who are staying in India, in purported compliance to an order the petitioner is claimed to have obtained from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Family Court Division, State of Minnesota, U.S.A. in July, 2023. A foreign judgment violative of Indian law is not conclusive between the parties and thus, Indian Courts are not bound to follow it. This principle is also statutorily recognized by Section 13(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Hence, the aforesaid order is not binding on the respondents or the children.
4. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********