V. RAVI CHANDRAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 28-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1022 
A 
V. RAVI CHANDRAN 
v. 
-+ 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(CRL.M.P. No.3401 of 2009) 
in 
B 
Writ Petition No.112 of 2007 
~ 
AUGUST 28, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
+-
J 
c 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 32 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Marriage of the 
couple dissolved by New York Supreme Court with provision 
for alternative physical custody of their minor child on aiweekly 
D basis - Wife brought the child to India in violation of court 
• 
order- Family Court, New York granted sole custody of child 
~ 
to father and issued child abuse non-bailable warrants against 
>(.., 
wife - Petition by husband before the Supreme Court of India 
for a writ of Habeas Corpus for custody ofchild - Held: Despite 
E efforts made by police officers of various States, the 
respondent-wife and the minor child could not be traced and 
their whereabouts could not be found - It is almost two years 
since the notice was issued but he child could not be 
produced - Respondent wife is said to be mentally unstable 
1 
F 
and running round with the child from one State to an.:>ther -
i 
In the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances, Central 
Bureau of Investigation may be assigned the task of tracing 
the minor and his production before the Court - This has 
become all the more necessary for the protection of health 
G 
and safety of the minor and because the police authorities of 
various States are clueless about the whereabouts of the 
respondent-wife - Registry of the Court is directed to write to 
the Director, CBI requesting him to trace the minor - For the 
:t 
said purpose the officers concerned of the CBI would have 
' 
H 
1022 
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
1023 
all the powers of police carrying out search and issue non-
A 
--+ --
bailable warrants if necessary and pick up the minor wherever 
he is found without interference from anyone and to produce 
him before the Court - Child and family welfare - Custody of 
child. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Crl. M.P. No. 3401 of B 
2009. 
-+ 
In 
\ 
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 112 of 2007. 
c 
Pinky Anand, D.N. Goburdhan, Prabal Bagchi, Attin 
Rastogi, S. Thananjayan, A.T.M. Sampath, Chandan 
Ramamurthi, Kamini Jaiswal, D. Bharathi Reddy, Anuradha 
Rustogi, Anitha Shenoy for the appearing parties. 
D 
..,( 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
~ 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Should Central Bureau of Investigation 
E 
be requested to trace the minor child Master Adithya Chandran 
in the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father is the question 
presently before us? 
).. 
2. Dr. Ravi Chandran -petitioner and Vijayashree Voora 
~ 
- respondent no. 6 got married qn December 14, 2000 at 
F 
"I 
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites. On July 1, 
2002, a son - Adithya was born out of the wedlock in United 
States of America. The matrimonial discord arose between the 
petitioner and respondent no. 6 soon thereafter. Respondent 
no. 6 approached the State of New York Supreme Court in the 
month of July, 2003 for divorce and dissolution of marriage. On 
G 
April 18, 2005, the State of New York Supreme Court passed 
a consent order governing the issues of the custody and 
guardianship of the minor Adithya. The Court granted joint 
custody to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 and it was also 
H• 
\ 
I 
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about 
-+ 
the wher~abouts of the child. On July 28, 2005,. a separation 
agreement was entered into between the petitioner and 
respondent no. 6 relying on various provisions of Domestic 
Relations Law for distribution of marital property, spouse 
B maintenance and child support. As regards custody of the minor . 
son Adithya and parenting time, the parties consented to the 
order datecfApril 18, ·2005. On September 8, 2005, the 
marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 was 
... 
dissolved by the State of New York Supreme Court. Child 
" 
c Custody order dated April 18, 2005 was incorporated in the 
order. Later on a consent order was passed by the Family 
Court, State of New York on June 18, 2007 whereby the. 
petitioner ·and respondent no. 6 were to have legal and physical 
custody of the minor child jointly. The consent order provided 
D 
that.parties shall have alternative physical custody of the mi~or 
')... 
child on a weekly basis. 
3. On June 28, 2007, respondent no. 6 brought minor 
Adithya t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.