LexARATHI SANDI versus BANDI JAGADRAKSHAKA RAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 13 S.C.R. 988
A
ARATHI SANDI
---r--
v.
SANDI JAGADRAKSHAKA RAO AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.934-936 of 2013 Htc.)
S
JULY 16, 2013
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
~
c
International Law - Private international law - Doctrine
of comity of courts - Dispute between husband and wife -
Divorce proceedings before U.S. court - Custody of their
minor child (U.S. citizen) granted to wife - Despite refusal
of relocation of the wife with the minor child to India, the
D wife came to India with minor child - U.S. Court thereafter
"("
made the husband custodial parent - U.S. court issued writ
of Habeas Corpus for producing the child - Also issued
abduction notice, Red comer notice and bailable/warrant
against the wife - Writ petition u!Art .. 226 by the husband in
E India seeking custody of the child - High Court issued writ
of Habeas Corpus and also directed the wife to produce the
chilc! before the Court - Wife did not comply with order qf
the Court and filed appeal -
This Court held: The wife "
reached India in defiance of orders passed by U.S. Court
F of competent jurisdiction and also did not regard the order
of High Court -
The wife cannot be allowed to take
advantage of her own wrong - Direction to wife to handover
the custody of the child to the U.S. Court arid participate in
the proceedings of the Court - Family Law - Custody of
~
G child.
The appellant-wife and respondent No.1-husband
got married and settled down in USA. A male child was
"
988
.._
H
' ,,
ARATHI SANDI v. SANDI JAGADRAKSHAKA RAO
989
"('"T
born out of the wedlock in USA and therefore was a
A
US citizen. The husband initiated proceedings for
dissolution of their marriage before the US Court. Wife
had also lodged complaint of domestic violence.
Parenting Plan was approved and thereby primary
custody of their son (the minor child) was given to the
S
wife with_ limited visitation rights to the husband. The
motion of wife for relocation to India was refused.
' ...
'
'1' ·Despite the refusal, the wife traveled to India with the
minor child. US Court further modified the Parenting
C
Plan making the husband custodial parent and giving
visitation rights to the wife. U.S. Court also issued writ
of Habeas Corpus, directing the State to produce the
minor child before the Court. Abduction notices were
also issued against the wife which was followed by Red
0
Corner Notice. U.S. Court also issued bailable warrants
against the wife.
Thereafter, the husband filed writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution and also filed application
seeking custody of the minor child to produce him
before· the U.S. Consulate. High Court issued· the writ
E
~ of Habeas Corpus directing the wife to su'bmit to the
jurisdiction of U.S .. Court. The application of the
husband was also decided by High Court directing the
F
wife to produce the minor child alongwith necessary
documents. The wife had filed review petition which she
later withdrew. She approached this Court by way of
·-'If Special Leave to appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. From the facts of the case, it becomes
evident that the wife has reached India in defiance of
the orders passed by the Courts of competent H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 s.e.R.
A jurisdiction in U.S. It is apparent that the appellant has·
scant regard for the orders passed by the High Court
in India also. [Para 18] [1008-C-D]
~
2. No relief can be granted_ to the appellant in the
B present proceedings given her conduct in removing the
child from U.S.A. in defiance of the orders of the Court
of competent jurisdiction. [Para 21] [1010-F]
3. The High Court has decided to exercise
c jurisdiction summarily and directed the alppellant to
return the child to the U.S.A. This course is absolutely
permissible. The appellant-wife has· not pursued any
legal proceeding for seeking custody of the minor child.
She has also not sought a declaration that the "orders
..--....
-, .
,
D passed by the American Courts 11re null and void and "-;(-
:r
are without jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court can
not be said to have acted erroneously. [Para 23] [1012-
. G-H; 1013-C-D]
E
4. The wife had participated in the proceedings in
America for ~o years prior to fleeing to India in the
defiance of the orders passed• by the Court of
competent jurisdiction restraining her from taking the +
child to India for a period of moreExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.