RUCHI MAJOO versus SANJEEV MAJOO

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 13-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 7 S.C.R. 674 
RUCHI MAJOO 
v. 
· SANJEEV MAJOO 
(Civil Appeal No. 4435 of 2011) 
MAY 13, 2011 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: s.9 - Jurisdiction of the 
court to entertain claim for grant of custody of a minor - Held: . 
C Any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court as regards the 
custody of the minor has to be seen in the context of th&"'; 
averments made in the pleadings of the parties and the 
requirement of s. 9 - Bare reading of s. 9 shows that the solitary 
test for determining the jurisdiction of the court uls. 9 of the Act 
D is the 'ordinary residence' of the minor- The expression used 
is "where the minor ordinarily resides"...;. Whether the minor is 
ordinarily residing at a given place is primarily a question of 
intention which in tum is a question of fact- In the instant case, 
the correspondence exchanged between the parents of the 
E minor clearly showed that the minor was ordinarily residing with . 
the mother-appellant in Delhi and was admitted to a school 
and studying for the past three years - The father-respondent 
continued to support that decision even when he was far away 
from any duress and coercion alleged by him till the time he 
F suddenly changed his mind and started accusing the 
appellant of abduction - High Court failed to notice these 
aspects and fell in error in accepting the version of the 
respondent and dismissing the application filed by the 
appellant for custody of the minor on the ground that the court 
G at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the same -
Jurisdiction. 
Jurisdiction: Parens Patraie jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of 
the court to entertain claim for grant of custody of a minor -
Recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts 
H 
674 
RUCHI MAJOO v. SANJEEV MAJOO 
675 
- Held: Courts in India are bound to determine the validity of A 
foreign decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of 
s.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as amended by the 
Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002 -
The duty of Court 
exercising its Parens Patraie jurisdiction as in cases involving 
custody of minor children is onerous - Welfare of the minor B 
in such cases being the paramount consideration, the court 
has to approach the issue regarding the validity and 
enforceme[lt of a foreign decree or order carefully - Simply . 
because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any 
aspect concerning the . welfare of the minor is not enough for c 
the Indian courts to shut out .an independent consideration of 
the matter ...:. Objectivity and not abjecfsurrender is the mantra 
in such cases - That would not, however, mean that the order 
passed. by a foreign court is not even a factor 'to be kept in 
view - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - s.13. 
Doctrines/Principles: Principle Of comity of courts - Held: 
The principle of 'comity of courts' ensures that foreign 
judgments and orders are unconditionally conclusive of the 
matter in controversy- This is all the more so where the courts 
D 
in India is dealing with matters concerning the interest and E 
welfare of minors including their custody- Interest and welfare 
of the minor being paramount, a competent court in India is 
entitled and indeed duty bound to examine the matter 
independently, taking the foreign judgment, if any, only as an 
input for its final adjudication - In the instant case, the 
F 
respondent-father's case that the minor was removed from the 
jurisdiction of the American Courts in contravention of the 
orders passed by ,them, was not factually correct - There were 
no proceedings between the parties in any Court in America 
before they came to India with the minor - Such proceedings G 
were instituted by the respondent only after he had agreed to 
leave the appellant and the minor behind in India, for the · 
, · former to explore career options and the latter to get admitted 
to a school - The charge of abduction contrary to a valid order 
granting custody was, therefore, untenable - Moreover, th.e H 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011) 7 S.C.R. 
A minor has been living in India and pursuing his studies in a 
reputed school in Delhi for nearly three years- He appeared 
to be happy with his studies and school and did not evince 
any interest in returning to his school in America - Dismissal 
of the application for custody in disregard of the attendant 
B 
circumstances was not a proper exercise of discretion by the 
High Court - Interest of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.