V. RAVI CHANDRAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 17-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 960 
V. RAVI CHANDRAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 112 of 2007) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, R.M. LODHA AND 
DR. B.S.CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Child Welfare - Custody and guardianship of foreign child 
- Removed from foreign jurisdiction by one parent - In 
c contravention of the orders of the Court - Held: In such cases 
court should either conduct an elaborate enquiry on the 
question of custody or to summarily direct the parent to return 
the case to the court of the country from which the child was 
removed to be investigated there - On facts, the case does not 
warrant enquiry by the court in India - Parent who removed the 
D child from the jurisdiction of the foreign country, directed to 
produce the child to the competent court there, within 15 days 
from the date of the order- On failure to do so, custody of the 
child with his passport to be restored to the other parent. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Jurisdiction 
· E under - Custody of foreign child decided by foreign court -
Removal of the child from foreign jurisdiction by one parent -
· ~ 
Petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus by other parent-
Held: Jurisdiction of Supreme Court is invokable in the facts 
of the case. 
F 
Petitioner, an American citizen got married to 
respon6dent No. 6. He obtained an order of dissolution of 
marriage from the competent court in the United States of 
America. Several orders were passed by the court with the 
consent of the parties, regarding custody and 
G guardianship of their minor child (7 years) who is also an 
American Citizen. By order dated 18.6.2005, a joint custody 
was given to them. Respondent No. 6 brought the child to 
India informing the petitioner that she would b~ residing 
with her parents in India. 
H 
960 
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
961 
~ 
Petitioner filed petitions before the Family court in 
A 
"' .... 
America, whe·reby petitioner was granted temporary sole 
legal and physical custody of the child, and respondent 
No. 6 was directed to give the child and his passport to the 
petitioner. Her custodial time with the child was 
suspended. The Family Court in America issued child B 
abuse non-bailable warrants against respondent No.6. 
Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 32 of the 
... 
Constitution of India, praying for a writ of habeas corpus 
for the production of his minor son and for handing over 
~ 
the custody and his passport to him. 
c 
Despite the efforts made by the police of different 
States, the child and respondent No. 6 could not be traced 
and their whereabouts could not be found for more than 
I 
two years. This Court directed CBI to trace them and 
produce the child before this Court. CBI traced the child 
D 
and respondent No. 6 and produced them before this 
... 
Court. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While dealing with a case of custody of a 
child removed by a parent from one country to another in 
E 
contravention to the orders of the court where the parties 
had set up their matrimonial home, the court in the country 
to which child has been removed must first consider the 
question whether the court could conduct an elaborate 
~ .. 
enquiry on the question of custody or by dealing with the 
matter summarily, order a parent to return custody of the 
F 
child to the country from which the child was removed and 
all aspects relating to child's welfare be investigated in a 
court in his own country. Should the court take a view that 
an elaborate enquiry is necessary, obviously the court is 
bound to consider the welfare and happiness of the child 
G 
as the paramount consideration and go into all relevant 
#-. 
aspects of welfare of child including stability and security, 
+ loving and understanding care and guidance and full 
development of the child's character, personality and 
talents. While doing so, the order of a foreign court as to 
H 
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
963 
also prima facie does not seem to have any merit since A 
~ ,..,\ 
despite the fact that the respondent No. 6 has been 
staying in India for more than two years, she has not 
pursued any legal proceeding for the sole custody of the 
minor or for declaration that the orders passed by the 
American courts concerning the custody of minor child are 
8 
null and void and without jurisdiction. Rather it transpires 
from the counter affidavit that initially respondent No. 6 
initi

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