My photo




Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Custody of Child =no relief could be granted to the appellant in the present proceedings given her conduct in removing Anand from U.S.A. in defiance of the orders of the Court of competent jurisdiction. - the duty of Courts in all countries to see that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of the country does not gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing.= The facts narrated above would clearly indicate that the mother is singularly responsible for removal of the child from the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. In view of the above, we are constrained to pass the following order:-= The directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order are upheld with the following additions and modifications:- Direction No.(iv) of the High Court shall be substituted by the following : “(iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the respondent No.7 and the child in suitable accommodation in a locality according to her status prior to the dissolution of marriage for a period of three months on their landing in USA.” Direction No.(vi) – Prior to making any travel arrangements for the 7th respondent and Anand, the petitioner shall move the Court of Competent Jurisdiction in USA for withdrawal of the bailable warrants issued against the respondent No.7 to enable her to attend the custody proceedings in the US Courts. Direction No.(viii) – Upon the bailable warrants having been withdrawn, the petitioner shall personally escort respondent No.7 and Anand from India to the USA. 32. With these observations, the judgment of the High Court is upheld and the Criminal Appeals No.934-936 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 10606-10608 of 2010 are hereby dismissed. 33. Before parting with this order, we may also notice here that the respondent (husband) filed a Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3335 of 2012, challenging the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed earlier, the aforesaid order was passed in the criminal petition filed by the respondent husband, seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by the appellant/wife against the respondent himself and his parents under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since no arguments were advanced in the aforesaid matter, let this appeal be listed for arguments separately.

           published in                           

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.934-936 OF 2013
             (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10606-10608 of 2010)

      Arathi                                                     Bandi
      Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors.                …Respondents
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2013
                (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3335 of 2012)

      Bandi Jagadrakshak Rao & Ors.                  …Appellants
      The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.          …Respondents

                              J U D G E M E N T
           1. Leave granted.
           2. These appeals arising  out  of  Special  Leave  Petition
              (Crl.)  No. 10606-10608 of 2010 are directed against the
              judgment and final  order  dated  24th  September,  2010
              passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Andhra
              Pradesh, Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.  25479  of  2009
              issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus  directing
              the petitioner to submit to  the  jurisdiction  of  U.S.
The petitioner also assails the orders dated 3rd
              December, 2010 and 14th December,  2010  passed  by  the
              Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.M.P.                No.
              31378 of 2010 in W.P. No. 25479 of 2010,  directing  the
              petitioner to produce the  child  along  with  necessary
              documents to give effect to the main judgment and  order
              dated 24th September, 2010.  
The  appellant  has  framed
              three questions of law for  the  consideration  of  this
              Court in the Special Leave Petition giving rise to these
              appeals.  They are as under:-
           “(A)  Has  not  the  Hon’ble  High  Court  failed  to   exercise
           jurisdiction vested in it  under  law  in  not  considering  the
           welfare and well being of the minor  child  before  issuing  the
           impugned directions ?

           (B) Has not the Hon’ble High Court erred in  holding  that  when
           there is an order passed by foreign court, it is  not  necessary
           to go into the facts of the case?

           (C) Is not the judgment of US Court “not conclusive” as  between
           the parties and  hence  unenforceable  in  India  for  being  in
           violation of  Section  13(c)  and  (d)  of  the  Code  of  Civil
           Procedure, 1908?”
           3.  The  relevant  facts  giving  rise  to  the   aforesaid
              questions of law as  narrated  by  the  parties  are  as
           (a)   Respondent No. 1  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the
                 “husband”) invoked the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction  of
                 the Andhra Pradesh High Court under  Article  226  of
                 the Constitution of India for production of the minor
                 child, i.e., Master Anand Saisuday Bandi  before  the
                 Court and permit him to take  custody  of  the  minor
                 child in compliance of  the  orders  passed  in  Case
                 No.06-3-08145-9-KNT  by   the   Superior   Court   of
                 Washington, County of King (hereinafter  referred  to
                 as “the U.S.  Court”).  
Upon  consideration  of  the
                 entire facts and circumstances, the High Court issued
                 the following directions:-
                 “ i)  The petitioner shall obtain necessary travel  tickets
                       for the 7th respondent and the child for their  visit
                       to the place where U.S. Court is situated;

                 ii)         On obtaining  travel  tickets,  the  petitioner
                       shall intimate the same to the 7th  respondent  three
                       weeks in advance of the date of departure  to  enable
                       her to make necessary arrangements;

                 iii)        The petitioner shall deposit  a  sum  of  $5000
                       (Five thousand American dollars) in the name  of  the
                       7th respondent for enabling her to engage an advocate
                       in US and to submit to the  jurisdiction  of  the  US

                 iv)   The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements  for
                       the stay of the 7th respondent and the  child  for  a
                       period of fifteen (15) [sic] on their landing in USA.

                 v)    On petitioner providing  travel  tickets,  depositing
                       the amount as ordered above, and intimating the  date
                       of departure, if 7th respondent fails  to  submit  to
                       the jurisdiction of  the  US  Court  along  with  the
                       child, Master Anand Saisuday Bandi, in  obedience  to
                       the orders passed in writ of Habeas Corpus by the  US
                       Court, she shall handover the custody of the child to
                       the petitioner, who in turn shall produce  the  child
                       before the US Court and custody  of  the  child  will
                       abide by the decision of the US Court since the child
                       is a citizen of USA.”

           (b)   The petitioner (hereinafter  referred  to  either  as
                 “the  petitioner”,  “the  wife”  or  “the   mother”),
                 aggrieved by  the  aforesaid  directions,  filed  the
                 special leave petitions giving rise  to  the  present

           Events/ Legal Proceedings in the U.S.A.:
           (c)   The  marriage  between  the  parties  was  solemnized
                 according to Hindu rights on 9th  November,  2003  in
                 Atlanta,  USA.  
They  were  both   divorcees.   After
                 marriage, they had  settled  down  in  Seattle,  USA.
                 Anand (hereinafter referred to either as “the child”,
                 “the minor child,” or “Anand”) was born on 5th  June,
                 2005 in USA and, therefore, is a US citizen by birth.
On 30th October, 2006, respondent No.1  (hereinafter
                 referred to as “respondent No.1”,  “the  husband”  or
                 “the father”) filed a  petition  for  dissolution  of
                 marriage in Superior Court of Washington,  County  of
                 King at Seattle.
In these proceedings,  an  ex  parte
                 order was issued restraining the  wife  from  leaving
                 the State of Washington.
The husband  was  authorised
                 to hold on to  the  passport  and  Person  of  Indian
                 Origin Card (PIO Card) of Anand.
Within days of  the
                 husband petitioning for dissolution of marriage,  the
                 wife on 13th November, 2006 submitted a complaint  of
                 domestic violence in  which  the  Superior  Court  of
                 Washington, Kent directed the husband to move out  of
                 the matrimonial home.
Anand  was  to  remain  in  the
                 custody of wife with limited visitation  rights  were
                 granted  to  the  husband.
The  wife  was,  however,
                 directed to pay  US $ 1500 for the husband’s expenses
                 until the regular hearing.
On  4th  December,  2006,
                 further  orders  were  issued  stipulating  that  the
                 wife/mother would occupy the  family  home  with  the
Furthermore, the father was to  bear  half  of
                 the  mortgage  on  family  home,  child’s  day   care
                 expenses and insurance costs for the  child  and  the
The unsupervised  visitation  rights  of  the
                 father were increased from 9 hours to  12  hours  per
Father’s attorney was required to hold  Anand’s
                 U.S.A. passport.
On 1st  March,  2007,  Ms.  Jennifer
                 Keilin  was  appointed  by  the  Superior  Court   of
                 Washington,  Kent  as  Guardian  ad  litem  to   make
                 recommendations  regarding  the  marriage  and  child
On 22nd  June,  2007,  Parenting  Evaluation
                 Report  was  submitted  to  the   U.S.   Court.   The
                 wife/mother was found suitable for custody in view of
                 the problems of the husband/father at the work place,
                 alcohol dependency and smoking addiction.
It was also
                 noted that the child  Anand  has  very  serious  food
On 9th July, 2007, the wife filed a motion
                 before the Superior Court of Washington, Seattle  for
                 an  emergency  hearing  on  her  petition  requesting
                 travel to India for two weeks.
This was denied by the
                 aforesaid court on 10th July, 2007. On the same  day,
                 the wife moved the Superior Court of Washington, Kent
                 seeking an emergency hearing. This too was denied  by
                 the Court.
However, regular hearing was set  for 24th
                 July, 2007.  On  25th  July,  2007,  at  the  regular
                 hearing,  the  Superior  Court  of  Washington,  Kent
                 passed an order permitting  the  wife  to  travel  to
                 India with the child. 
However, at the request of  the
                 husband, the said order was stayed, until his  motion
                 of reconsideration could  be  adjudicated.  
On  17th
                 August, 2007, the wife filed motion  for  continuance
                 of trial, permanent  relocation  to  India  with  the
                 child and requesting the court to order the father to
                 undergo  domestic  violence   assessment.    On   4th
                 September, 2007, Superior Court of  Washington,  Kent
                 passed  orders  granting  request  of  the  wife  for
                 continuance  of  trial,  appointing   Ms.  Keilin  to
                 conduct another evaluation  to  make  recommendations
                 regarding relocation. However,  the  request  of  the
                 wife to order the husband to  go  through  a  further
                 domestic violence assessment was denied.
On the  same
                 day, i.e. 4th September,  2007,  the  appeal  of  the
                 father against  the  order  dated  25th  July,  2007,
                 permitting the wife  to  travel  to  India  with  the
                 child, was allowed.

           (d)   The trial in the main  petition  for  dissolution  of
                 marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown  of
                 marriage  commenced  on  18th  March,  2008  in   the
                 Superior Court of Washington, Kent.  On  19th  March,
                 2008,  parenting  plan  was  approved  with   primary
                 custody of Anand given  to  the  mother  and  limited
                 visitation  rights  granted  to  the  father.  During
                 summer  vacations  of  two  weeks,  each  parent  was
                 granted five consecutive days of residential time, at
                 a time.  Out of State  or  International  travel  was
                 permitted to both the parties during the  residential
                 time. The attorney of the husband was ordered by  the
                 Superior Court of Washington to prepare final orders.

           4. On  20th  March,  2008,  the  motion  of  the  wife  for
              relocation to India was denied. On 7th July,  2008,  the
              wife filed a motion petition before the  Superior  Court
              of Washington, Kent requesting a clarification on  final
              parenting plan to           permit 13  consecutive  days
              of vacation with the child for travelling to  India.
              16th July, 2008, Superior Court of Washington denied her
In violation of the aforesaid orders,  the  wife
              travelled to India with Anand on  17th  July,  2008.  On
              22nd August, 2008,  final  orders  were  passed  in  the
              petition  filed  by  the  husband  for  dissolution   of
The order includes findings of  fact  and  law
              entered by the Superior Court of Washington.  The  Court
              specifically recorded the reasons that led to the denial
              of the motion filed by the wife for relocation  on  20th
              March,  2008.  On  23rd  August,  2008,  divorce  decree
              entered by the Superior Court of Washington as  part  of
              final orders.

           5. On the same day, i.e., 23rd August, 2008, the wife  sent
              an e-mail to the husband informing  him  that  she  will
              return on 16th September, 2008 alongwith the child.
              E-mail also contained the confirmed itinerary. Since the
              wife did not return with the child, the husband moved an
              application in September, 2008 seeking  modification  of
              the final parenting plan on the grounds of violation  of
              earlier parenting plan           (19th March, 2008)  and
              interference  with  his  visitation   rights.  
On   9th
              December,  2008,  Superior  Court  of  Washington,  Kent
              modified  the  parenting  plan.  The  husband  was  made
              custodial parent and the  wife  was  granted  visitation
On   12th   December,   2008,
              Superior Court of Washington, Seattle also issued a Writ
              of Habeas Corpus, directing the State and  its  officers
              to locate and take  Anand  into  immediate  custody  and
              deliver him to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
              of Washington, County of King.
On 11th  January,  2009,
              abduction  notices  were  issued   against   the   wife.
              This was  followed  by  a  Red  Corner  Notice.
In  the
              meantime, the services of the husband were terminated by
              his employer in February,  2009,  due  to  the  economic
Similarly, the wife was also affected  by  the
              downturn and was not able to take up a new  job  in  the
Since the wife did not return  with  the  child  on
              13th March, 2009, Superior  Court  of  Washington,  Kent
              issued  bailable  warrants  against  her  for  Custodial
              Interference in the First  Degree.  
In  May,  2009,  the
              husband sold the matrimonial house in USA.

      Events and legal proceedings in India -
           6. On 20th November,  2009,  the  husband  filed  a  Habeas
              Corpus petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  Since
              there was no representation  from  the  wife,  the  writ
              petition  was   admitted.   
Upon   completion   of   the
              proceedings,  which  according  to  the  husband,   were
              deliberately  delayed  by  the  wife,  the  High   Court
              delivered  the  impugned  judgment             on   24th
              September, 2010.
A  few  days  thereafter,  the  husband
              filed W.P.M.P. No.31378 of 2010 on 29th September, 2010,
              seeking inter alia custody of Anand  for  producing  him
              before the US Consulate in Hyderabad; a direction to the
                      Registrar (Judicial) of the Andhra Pradesh  High
              Court to return his own Indian Passport; and a direction
              to the wife for providing  her  “current  name”,  “xerox
              copies of her current passport”, “visa papers” and  “PIO
              Card” of Anand to the husband.
On  3rd  December,  2010,
              the High Court directed the wife  to  be  present  along
              with Anand before it on the next date of hearing,  i.e.,
              10th December, 2010.
She was also  directed  to  produce
              her passport and visa papers and the PIO Card of  Anand,
              so  as  to  enable  the  husband  to  comply  with   the
              directions of the High Court issued in Writ Petition No.
              25479 of 2009 dated 24th September, 2010.
It seems  that
              on 10th December, 2010, another Advocate,  who  replaced
              the earlier counsel, appeared for the  wife  and  sought
              some more time  to  comply  with  the  order  dated  3rd
              December, 2010.
 On 14th December, 2010, the  wife  came
              to the High Court, albeit without Anand and  served  the
              copy of her Review Petition against the  judgment  dated
              24th September, 2010 to the petitioner/husband.  On 18th
              December, 2010, the present appeal was preferred  before
              this Court, by the wife.
Meanwhile  on  22nd  December,
              2010, neither the wife nor Anand came to the High  Court
              and a death in the family at Vijayawada was reported  by
              her as the  reason  for  the  absence.  
Again  on  28th
              December, 2010, the wife and Anand  absented  themselves
              from the High Court.  The High  Court,  however,  issued
              directions on the  same  date  to  the  Commissioner  of
              Police, Hyderabad City to produce Anand before the Court
              on 17th January 2011.  On 18th January, 2011, the police
                                                          could    not
              locate either wife or Anand.  Upon this, the High  Court
              granted a week’s time to the police  to  produce  Anand.
On 25th January, 2011, since the police could not locate
              Anand, the High  Court  issued  a  non-bailable  warrant
              against wife and directed the matter to be listed on 8th
              February, 2011.
Meanwhile, this Court on 31st  January,
              2011, issued notice in the Civil  Appeal  filed  by  the
              wife and order dated 25th January, 2011 was stayed.
              Review Petition pending before the High Court appears to
              have been withdrawn by the petitioner after  the  notice
              was issued by this court in the present Civil Appeal.
           7. We have heard the learned counsel  for  the  parties  at

           8. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior  counsel  appearing
              for the wife has submitted that both the mother and  the
              child have been in India since July,  2008.
The  mother
              has been looking after Anand single handedly without any
              help from the father.
She has got a well paid  job  with
              IBM at Bangalore.
Anand now lives in a joint family  and
              is happy. He enjoys the company of his  cousins.  He  is
              now 8 years of age and has developed roots in India.
              has emphasised that the High Court  has  not  considered
              the  welfare  of  the  child  in  passing  the  impugned
He  has  submitted,  by   making   exhaustive
              reference to the Parenting Evaluation  Report,  that  it
              would be for the welfare of the child to remain with the
              mother in India.
Learned senior counsel  submitted  that
              this Court would have  to  consider  the  benefits  that
              would accrue to Anand if he is permitted to remain  with
              her  in  India  as  opposed  to  the  undesirability  of
              compelling her to handover his custody  to  the  father.
Learned  senior  counsel  submits  that  the   Parenting
              Evaluation Report clearly notices that  the  father  was
              subjected to Urinalysis Testing for alcohol.
The  mother
              had objected  to  her  husband’s  use  of  alcohol.  The
              husband frequently drank alcohol during the evening.  At
              the same time, he tried to hide his  alcohol  dependency
              from his parents who were staying with him.
The wife had
              also narrated before Ms. Jennifer Keilin  who  gave  the
              Parenting Evaluation Report that the husband drank while
              watching television, consuming  half  a  bottle  of  rum
              every evening. His drinking had increased while she  was
              visiting India in April and  May,  2004.
She  had  also
              claimed that the husband  sometimes  had  difficulty  in
              waking up in the morning and after drinking he  suffered
              occasional hangovers.
Mr.  Shishodia  also  pointed  out
              that the husband is also addicted to cigarette  smoking.
              He also has  a  history  of  employment  problems.
              apart,  the  husband  had  also  admitted   before   the
              evaluator about his past  drug  use.  Referring  to  the
              Parenting Evaluation Report, Mr. Shishodia  pointed  out
              the numerous other difficulties which were  being  faced
              by both the parties whilst they  were  married.
On  the
              basis of the aforesaid, he submitted that the High Court
              erred in  law  by  not  taking  into  consideration  the
              relevant factors whilst passing the  impugned  judgment.
              At this stage, he relied on the judgment of  this  Court
              in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs. Harbax Singh  Sandhu  &
              Anr.[1]. He submitted that the High  Court  has  totally
              ignored the relevant facts for determining what would be
              in the best interest of the child. He also  pointed  out
              to the conclusion in  the  Parenting  Evaluation  Report
              which is as under:
           “In my opinion, Anand should reside primarily with Ms. Bandi. He
           should have regular, limited visitation with Mr. Rao, increasing
           at regular intervals. These intervals should be based on Mr. Rao
           completing and  maintaining  certain  criteria  as  well  as  on
           Anand’s development needs. Mr. Rao  should  engage  in  specific
           services, including alcohol treatment and a parenting class, and
           both parents should participate in co-parent counseling.”

           9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that  the  High
              Court has totally misconstrued the principle  of  Comity
              of Courts, as applicable in  private  international  law
The High Court has erred in holding that it was
              not necessary to hold an elaborate enquiry in the  facts
              and circumstances of this case.
He  submitted  that  the
              High Court has misconstrued the principles of  law  laid
              down by this Court in V. Ravi Chandran   (Dr.)  (2)  Vs.
              Union  of  India  &  Ors.[2].  He  submitted  that   the
              observations made by this Court in the  case  of  Shilpa
              Aggarwal (Ms.) Vs. Aviral Mittal & Anr.[3] would not  be
              applicable in the facts and circumstances of this  case.
              In fact, the matter is squarely covered by the  judgment
              of this Court in Dhanwanti  Joshi  Vs.  Madhav  Unde[4].
              Learned senior counsel also relied on  the  judgment  in
              Sarita Sharma Vs. Sushil Sharma[5] and Ruchi  Majoo  Vs.
              Sanjeev Majoo[6].
Learned counsel pointed out  that  the
              High Court  has  totally  ignored  some  very  important
              issues as to why it would not  be  in  the  interest  of
              Anand to be sent back to USA to live  with  the  father.
              He also pointed out that the husband has lost his job in
              the USA and has been living in India for the past  three
              years. He  has  also  sold  the  family  house  in  USA.
              Therefore, Anand would have no family atmosphere  if  he
              is taken back to the USA. He pointed out that  initially
              the custody of Anand had been given to the mother on the
              basis of the recommendations made in the parenting plan.
              However, subsequently, orders have been passed  granting
              custody to the respondent-husband.
It  is  these  orders
              which are sought to be enforced in the USA Courts  which
              had led to the filing of the Habeas Corpus  petition  in
              the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  He  submitted  that  the
              mother had been compelled to leave the USA  due  to  the
              irrational behaviour  of  the  husband.
Learned  senior
              counsel also  pointed  out  even  at  the  time  of  the
              marriage, the plan was  actually  to  settle  in  India.
              Subsequently, however, the husband declined to return to
              India. He also pointed out that  the  removal  of  Anand
              from USA was neither thoughtless nor malicious.
 The wife
              had to return to India due to the  serious  ailment  and
              old age of her parents. She is now looking after them in
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that  the  wife
              is trying to alienate the child from the husband.

          10. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, for the respondent-
              husband submitted that the wife has  come  to  India  in
              violation of the parenting plan.
It  is  submitted  that
              she participated in the proceedings in USA,  where  some
              orders were passed in her favour while the  others  were
              against her.

          11. He submits that all efforts of the wife  are  simply  to
              alienate the child from the father.
He  emphasises  that
              the petitioner and respondent No.1 were married in  USA.
              At the time of marriage, they were both divorcees.
              had settled in Seattle, USA. Anand was born in  USA  and
              is,  therefore,  a  US  citizen   by   birth.  
Due   to
              irreconcilable differences, the husband was  constrained
              to initiate proceedings in the USA Court for dissolution
              of marriage.
During the pendency of the  proceedings  in
              the  USA  Court,  the  wife  had  shown   a   consistent
              propensity to disobey the orders of the  Court.  At  the
              same time, she filed a number of motions in the  pending
              proceedings   with   regard   to   domestic    violence;
              independent occupation of the matrimonial home,  at  the
              same time demanding that the husband bears half  of  the
              mortgage of the family home and other expenses  for  her
              as well as the child.
Although  both  the  parents  were
              allowed five days residential time with the child during
              the two weeks summer vacation, the effort  of  the  wife
              was always to remove him from the country of his  birth.
Her  motion  for  permanent  location   to   India   was
              ultimately denied on 16th July 2008.
 In defiance of  the
              said order, she travelled to India with  Anand  on  17th
              July, 2008.
The learned senior counsel submits that  the
              facts which  have  been  narrated  above  would  clearly
              indicate that the petitioner has little or no regard for
              the orders of the Court.

          12. Mr. Patwalia further submitted that the conduct  of  the
              petitioner in the courts in  this  country  follows  the
              same pattern.
In fact, the counsel  for  the  petitioner
              has admitted before the High Court the fact of US  Court
              passing order for the custody of the child and  that  it
              has not permitted the petitioner to remove the child out
              of Washington.
It was further admitted that in spite  of
              the aforesaid direction, the child was removed from  the
              jurisdiction of the Courts in which  he  was  born.  The
              fact of issuance of the Writ of  Habeas  Corpus  by  the
              United States Superior Court for production of the child
              was also admitted. Before the High Court,  a  submission
              was made on behalf of the petitioner-wife for  grant  of
              some time to submit to the jurisdiction of the US  Court
              and to enable her to obtain necessary  orders  from  the
              aforesaid court. Relying on the aforesaid submissions of
              the petitioner, the High Court had issued the directions
              reproduced earlier in  this  judgment.  After  obtaining
              such orders, the wife disappeared again from the  scene.
              Consequently,  the  respondent-husband  had  to  file  a
              miscellaneous  application  seeking  directions  to  the
              petitioner to handover the  custody  of  the  child  for
              producing before the US Consulate in Hyderabad.  On  3rd
              December, 2010, the High Court directed  the  petitioner
              to be present before the Court on  10th  December,  2010
              along with the child, so that the husband  could  comply
              with  the  directions  issued  by  the  Court  on   24th
              September, 2010.      On 14th December, 2010,  the  wife
              appeared in Court but did  not  produce  the  child,  as
              directed. It was submitted before the Court that she had
              filed a review petition which ought to be taken  up  for
              hearing and sought one week’s time for production of the
              child. Upon this assurance,  the  Court  again  directed
              that the child  be  produced  on  22nd  December,  2010.
              According to Mr. Patwalia, she was all along  misleading
              the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whilst preparing to  file
              the SLP against  the  impugned  judgment.  The  SLP  was
              actually filed on 18th December, 2010, challenging three
              orders viz. orders dated 24th September, 2010 passed  in
              W.P.No.25479 of 2009 and  subsequent  orders  dated  3rd
              December, 2010                and  14th  December,  2010
              passed in W.P.M.P. No.31378 of  2010  in  the  aforesaid
              writ petition.

          13. Mr. Patwalia points out that, in fact,  the  conduct  of
              the petitioner  is  noticed  in  the  order  dated  28th
              December, 2010. The High Court noticed that in spite  of
              the directions having been given, the petitioner has not
              produced the child  in  the  Court.  She  had  also  not
              produced necessary papers relating to the child. On 14th
              December, 2010, she had undertaken to produce the  child
              on 22nd December, 2010.  On  22nd  December,  2010,  the
              counsel  for  the  petitioner  had  submitted  that  her
              maternal uncle had died and, therefore, she had left for
              Vijayawada. But on 28th December, 2010, it  was  brought
              to the notice of the court that her maternal  uncle  had
              already  died  on  16th  December,  2010.  It  was  then
              represented before the High Court  that  the  petitioner
              was staying at Vijayawada because the child  was  unwell
              and admitted in hospital. The High  Court  noticed  that
              the petitioner appears to have made a false statement on
              the last date of hearing. Therefore, the directions were
              issued to  the  Commissioner  of  Police,  Hyderabad  to
              produce the child before the  Court   on  17th  January,
              2011 at 4.00 p.m. On 18th January, 2011, the  Court  was
              informed by the Assistant  Government  Pleader  that  in
              spite of best efforts by the police, the child could not
              be traced and she sought  further  time  to  locate  and
              produce the child in Court.  Since  the  petitioner  was
              failing to assist the authorities in locating the child,
              non-bailable warrants were issued for  her.  The  matter
              was posted for  further  proceedings  on  8th  February,
              2011. In the meantime, this Court  on 31st January, 2011
              issued   notice   in   the   SLP    and    stayed    the

                                                operation    of    the
              impugned orders.

          14.  Learned  senior  counsel  further  submitted  that  the
              petitioner is able to defy  the  orders  issued  by  the
              Court of Competent Jurisdiction in USA as India is not a
              signatory to the Hague  Convention  of  1980  on  “Civil
              Aspects of International Child Abduction”. The aforesaid
              Convention fully recognizes the concept of  doctrine  of
              Comity  of  Courts  in  private  international  law.  He
              submits that taking note of the  undesirable  effect  of
              not being the signatory to the aforesaid convention, the
              then Chairman of the Law Commission of India recommended
              that India should keep pace and change according to  the
              changing  needs   of   the   society.   The   Commission
              recommended that the Government may consider that  India
              should become a signatory to  the  Hague  Convention  of
              1980  which  will,  in  turn,  bring  the  prospect   of
              achieving the return to India of children who have their
              homes in India.  [See Law  Commission  of  India  Report
              No.218 entitled “Need to accede to the Hague  Convention
              on the Civil Aspects of  International  Child  Abduction
              (1980)”].  Mr. Patwalia also submits that  the  impugned
              order/judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  is  in
              consonance with the law as declared  by  this  Court  in
              numerous judgments. In support of  his  submission,  the
              learned senior counsel  relies  on  the  same  judgments
              which were cited by Mr. Shishodia.
          15.  Mr.  Patwalia  also  pointed  out  that  not  only  the
              petitioner had made false statements  before  the  Court
              but she had denied the  husband  any  contact  with  the
              child. From 6th April, 2010, the husband was entitled to
              see the child for 2½ hours. From 3rd October, 2010,  the
              period was increased to 4 hours.  Mr.  Patwalia  further
              submitted that
the petitioner has also filed a complaint
              in the  Court  of  XIII  Additional  Chief  Metropolitan
              Magistrate, Hyderabad  against  her  husband,  both  his
              parents and his brother, alleging commission of offences
              under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC; and Sections 4 & 6  of
              the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The respondent and  his
              parents had filed Criminal Petition  no.  6711  of  2009
              under section 482 of Cr.P.C., before the High  Court  of
              Andhra  Pradesh  seeking  quashing   of   the   criminal
In the said proceedings, the High Court, vide
              order  dated  23rd  December  2011,
              partly allowed the said criminal petition  and  directed
              that the respondent husband and other co-accused  should
              not be prosecuted for offences said to have taken  place
              in USA without necessary  permission  from  the  Central
 However, the proceedings emanating from  the
              said complaint were not quashed because the  High  Court
              was of the opinion that there is sufficient prima  facie
              material in the complaint in  the  context  of  offences
              alleged to have been committed in India. 
The said  order
              is under challenge before us, in Criminal Appeal arising
              from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3385 of 2012.

          16. In this context, Mr. Patwalia submits that the aforesaid
              complaint is merely a counter blast to the  divorce  and
              child  custody  proceedings  initiated  by  the  husband
              against the wife.

          17. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the
              learned senior counsel  for  the  parties  and  minutely
              perused the material on record.

          18. From the facts narrated above,
it becomes  evident  that
              the wife has reached India in  defiance  of  the  orders
              passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction  in  U.S.
It is apparent that the appellant has scant  regard  for
              the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court also.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts  and  circumstances,
              the Andhra Pradesh  High  Court  issued  the  directions
              which have been reproduced in the earlier  part  of  the
Although the learned counsel for the  parties
              have relied on a number of judgments of  this  Court  in
              support of their respective submissions, in our opinion,
              the matter is squarely covered by the ratio  of  law  in
              the case of V. Ravichandran (supra).

          19. In the  aforesaid  judgment,  this  Court  considered  a
              similar factual situation.
The petitioner, who  was  of
              Indian origin, was a citizen of  the  United  States  of
He married respondent No. 6 on  14th  December,
              2000 at Tirupathi in India.
On  1st  July,  2002,  child
              Aditya was born while they were in USA.
Subsequently,  a
              dispute arose between the parties regarding  custody  of
              Aditya, and the parties had obtained consent order dated
              18th June, 2007 from the court of competent jurisdiction
              in USA  under  which  both  the  parents  were  to  have
              alternate custody of the child on weekly basis.
              respondent No. 6,  in  violation  of  the  said  court's
              orders, removed the child to India on  28th  June,  2007
              for staying with her parents in Chennai.
The  petitioner
              in turn moved the USA Court  on  8th  August,  2007  for
              modification of custody  order  and  for  taking  action
              against respondent No. 6 for violation of  court  order.
On that very day, the petitioner was  granted  temporary
              sole legal and physical custody of the minor  child  and
              respondent No. 6 was directed to immediately  turn  over
              the minor child and his passport to the petitioner.
              order could not however be implemented in USA because of
              illegal removal of child by respondent No. 6  to  India.
The petitioner thereafter filed habeas  corpus  petition
              under Article 32 of  the  Constitution  in  the  Supreme
              Court for production of the minor child and for  handing
              over his  custody  to  the  petitioner  along  with  the
              child's passport.
Despite orders of the  Supreme  Court,
              the State Police could not produce  the  child  for  two
              years, but CBI, on the directions of the Supreme  Court,
              was able to trace  and  produce  the  child  within  two
The  Court  considered   what   would   be   an
              appropriate  order  in  the  facts  and   circumstances,
              keeping in mind the  interests  of  the  child  and  the
              orders of the courts of the United  States  of  America.
The Supreme Court while passing orders in this case also
              took into consideration several  concessions  which  the
              petitioner husband made so that the wife could return to
              USA and present her claim, if any, over the child in the
              Courts in USA.

          20. This Court partly allowed the writ petition with certain
              observations which are very relevant in the decision  in
              the present case.
We may notice the  observations  made
              in different paragraphs of the  judgment.  In  Paragraph
              25, the Court noticed the observation made  by  a  Three
              Judge Bench of this Court in the case of  Smt.  Surinder
              Kaur Sandhu (supra), particular notice was taken of  the
              observations made in Paragraph 10 of the judgment, which
              are as under:-
           “10. In B's Settlement, In re, B. v. B.  the  Chancery  Division
           was concerned with an application for custody by the  father  of
           an infant who had been made a ward of court. The  father  was  a
           Belgian national and the mother  a  British  national  who  took
           Belgian nationality on marriage to him. The infant was  born  in
           Belgium. The mother was granted a divorce by a judgment  of  the
           court in Belgium, but the judgment was reversed and  the  father
           became entitled to custody by the common  law  of  Belgium.  The
           mother, who had gone to live in England, visited Belgium and was
           by arrangement given the custody of the infant  for  some  days.
           She took him to England and did not return him. The  infant  had
           been living with the mother in England for nearly two years. The
           father began divorce  proceedings  in  Belgium,  and  the  court
           appointed him guardian. Pending the proceedings, the court  gave
           him the custody and ordered the  mother  to  return  the  infant
           within twenty-four hours of service of the order on her. She did
           not return the infant. The correctional court in Brussels  fined
           her for disobedience and sentenced her  to  imprisonment  should
           the fine be not paid. The correctional court also confirmed  the
           custody order.”

          21. In our opinion, these observations leave  no  manner  of
              doubt that 
no relief could be granted to  the  appellant
              in the present proceedings given her conduct in removing
              Anand from U.S.A. in defiance of the orders of the Court
              of competent jurisdiction. 
The  Court  has  specifically
              approved the modern theory of Conflict  of  Laws,  which
              prefers the jurisdiction of the State which has the most
              intimate contact with the issues arising  in  the  case.
The Court also holds that Jurisdiction is not  attracted
              “by   the   operation   or   creation   of    fortuitous
The Court adds a caution that  to  allow
              the assumption of jurisdiction by another State in  such
              circumstances will only  result  in  encouraging  forum-
The   aforesaid   observations   are   fully
              applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

          22. Again in Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw Vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw  &
              Anr.[7], this Court reiterated the principle that it was
              the duty of Courts in all countries to see that a parent
              doing wrong by removing children out of the country does
              not  gain  any  advantage  by  his  or  her  wrongdoing.
                                In Re H. (Infants)[8],  the  Court  of
              Appeal in England had also observed that the sudden  and
              unauthorized removal of children  from  one  country  to
              another is far too frequent nowadays.  Therefore, it  is
              the duty of all courts in all countries to do  all  they
              can to ensure  that  the  wrongdoer  does  not  gain  an
              advantage by his wrongdoing.   These  observations  were
              also approved specifically by the Court in the  case  of
              Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra).   In  the  case  of   V.
              Ravichandran (supra), in Paragraph 29 and 30, this Court
              has concluded as follows:-
           “29. While dealing with a case of custody of a child removed  by
           a parent from one country to another  in  contravention  of  the
           orders  of  the  court  where  the  parties  had  set  up  their
           matrimonial home, the court in the country to  which  the  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 child to the  country  from  which  the
           child was removed  and  all  aspects  relating  to  the  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 as the  paramount  consideration  and  go
           into all relevant aspects of  welfare  of  the  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 his custody may be given due weight; the weight  and
           persuasive effect of a  foreign  judgment  must  depend  on  the
           circumstances of each case.

           30. However, in a case where the court decides to  exercise  its
           jurisdiction summarily to return the child to his  own  country,
           keeping in view the jurisdiction of  the  court  in  the  native
           country which has the closest  concern  and  the  most  intimate
           contact with the issues arising in the case, the court may leave
           the  aspects  relating  to  the  welfare  of  the  child  to  be
           investigated by the court in his  own  native  country  as  that
           could be in the best interests  of  the  child.  The  indication
           given in McKee v. McKee that there may be cases in which  it  is
           proper for  a  court  in  one  jurisdiction  to  make  an  order
           directing that a child be returned  to  a  foreign  jurisdiction
           without investigating the merits of the dispute relating to  the
           care of the child on the ground that such an  order  is  in  the
           best interests of the child has been explained in L (Minors), In
           re and the  said  view  has  been  approved  by  this  Court  in
           Dhanwanti Joshi. Similar view taken by the Court of Appeal in H.
           (Infants), In re has been approved by this  Court  in  Elizabeth

          23. In our  opinion,  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  has
              decided to exercise jurisdiction summarily and  directed
              the appellant to return the child to  the  U.S.A.   This
              course is absolutely permissible as is apparent from the
              observations made by this Court in Paragraph 30  of  the
              aforesaid  judgment.   This  Court  also  rejected   the
              objection raised by respondent  No.  6  in  the  Counter
              Affidavit that the  American  court,  which  passed  the
              order/decree has no jurisdiction and being  inconsistent
              in Indian Laws can not be executed  in  India.   It  was
              observed that despite the fact that the  respondent  had
              been staying in India for more than 2 years, she has not
              pursued any legal proceeding for the sole custody of the
              minor child or  for  the  declaration  that  the  orders
              passed by the American courts concerning the custody  of
              minor child are null and void and without  jurisdiction.
               Similar are the facts in the present  case.   The  wife
              has not pursued any legal proceeding for seeking custody
              of Anand. She has also not sought a declaration that the
              orders passed by the American Courts are null  and  void
              and  are  without  jurisdiction.   Therefore,   in   our
              opinion, the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh  can  not  be
              said       to       have       acted        erroneously.
                      In V. Ravichandran’s case  (supra),  this  court
              again observed in Paragraph 35 as follows:-
           “35. The facts and circumstances noticed above leave  no  manner
           of doubt that merely because the child has been brought to India
           by Respondent  6,  the  custody  issue  concerning  minor  child
           Adithya does not deserve to be gone into by the courts in  India
           and it would be in accord with principles of comity as  well  as
           on facts to return the  child  back  to  the  United  States  of
           America from where he has been removed and enable the parties to
           establish the case before the courts in the native State of  the
           child i.e. the United States of America for modification of  the
           existing custody orders. There is nothing on  record  which  may
           even remotely suggest that it would be harmful for the child  to
           be returned to his native country.”

          24. These observations are squarely applicable in the  facts
              and circumstances of the present  case.   Mr.  Shishodia
              has, however, placed strong reliance on the judgment  of
              this  Court  in  Ruchi  Majoo  (supra).   The  aforesaid
              judgment would not be of any assistance to the appellant
              in the facts and circumstances of the present case.   In
              that case, the respondent and wife had  been  living  in
              America,  the  child  was  born  in  America  and   was,
              therefore, an American Citizen.  The wife on account  of
              husband’s addiction to pornographic films, internet  sex
              and adulterous  behavior  during  the  couple's  stay in
              America took a decision to take the child to  Delhi  and
              the husband consented to it.   The  parties  had  agreed
              that the wife will stay with the minor  child  in  India
              and  make  the  best  arrangements  for  his  schooling.
              Subsequently, however, the husband objected to the  wife
              staying in India.  On the other hand, the  wife  had  no
              intentions  of  returning  to   the   country   in   the
              foreseeable future especially after she has had  a  very
              traumatic period on account of matrimonial discord  with
              the  respondent  husband.  The  wife   had   taken   out
              proceedings under Section 9 of the  Guardian  and  Wards
              Act, 1890 seeking custody of the minor  child.   Shortly
              after  the  presentation  of  the  main   petition,   an
              application under Section 12 of the Guardian  and  Wards
              Act  read  with  Section  151 of  the  Code   of   Civil
              Procedure, 1908 was filed  by  the  wife/mother  of  the
              child praying for an ex-parte interim order  restraining
              the respondent from removing the minor from her  custody
              and for an order granting interim custody of  the  minor
              to the Appellant.  On the other hand,  the  husband  had
              filed a case against the appellant alleging that she had
              abducted the minor child.  On  his  application,  a  Red
              Corner Notice was  issued  against  the  wife.   In  the
              meantime, the Additional District  Court  at  Delhi  had
              granted interim custody to the appellant by order  dated
              4th April, 2009.   This  order  was  challenged  by  the
              husband under Article 227 of the Constitution  of  India
              before the High Court of Delhi.  The  Delhi  High  Court
              accepted the  petition,  set  aside  the  order  of  the
              District Court and dismissed the custody case  filed  by
              the mother primarily on the ground  that  the  Court  at
              Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as  the
              minor was not ordinarily residing at  Delhi.   The  High
              Court also held that all issues relating to the  custody
              of child ought  to  be  adjudicated  by  the  Courts  in
              America not only because that Court had  already  passed
              an order to that effect in favour  of  the  father,  but
              also because all the three parties namely,  the  parents
              of  the  minor  and  the  minor  himself  were  American
              citizens. The High Court then buttressed its decision on
              the  principle  of  comity   of   courts   and   certain
              observations made by this Court in the earlier decisions
              relied  upon  by  the  husband.    It   was   in   these
              circumstances that the appeal filed by  the  wife/mother
              against the order of the High Court was  allowed.   This
              Court  specifically   took   note   of   the   following
           “34. The appellant’s case is that although the couple and  their
           son had initially planned to return to USA, that decision  taken
           with the mutual consent of the parties was changed to allow  the
           appellant to stay back in India and to  explore  career  options
           here. Master Kush was also according to  that  decision  of  his
           parents, to stay back and be admitted to a school in Delhi.  The
           decision on both counts, was free from  any  duress  whatsoever,
           and had the effect of shifting the “ordinary residence”  of  the
           appellant and her son Kush from the place they  were  living  in
           America to Delhi. Not only this the  respondent  father  of  the
           minor, had upon his return to America sent e-mails,  reiterating
           the decision and offering his full  support  to  the  appellant.
           This is, according to the appellant, clear from the text of  the
           e-mails exchanged  between  the  parties  and  which  are  self-
           explanatory as to the context in which they are sent.”

          25. This Court accepted the submission of the appellant that
              on the consent of the parties, the ordinary residence of
              the minor had  shifted  to  India.   In  coming  to  the
              aforesaid conclusions, the Court  examined  the  e-mails
              exchanged between the parties, which totally  demolished
              the respondent’s defence that his consent  for  shifting
              the residence of the minor was obtained by coercion.  In
              Paragraph 45 of the judgment, it is observed as follows:-

           “45. It is difficult to appreciate how the respondent  could  in
           the light of the  above  communications  still  argue  that  the
           decision to allow the appellant and Master Kush to stay back  in
           India was taken  under  any  coercion  or  duress.  It  is  also
           difficult to appreciate how the respondent could change his mind
           so soon after the above e-mails and rush to a court  in  US  for
           custody  of  the  minor  accusing  the  appellant   of   illegal
           abduction, a charge which is belied by his  letter  dated  19-7-
           2008 and the e-mails extracted above. The fact remains that Kush
           was ordinarily residing with the appellant, his mother  and  has
           been admitted to a school, where he has been  studying  for  the
           past nearly three years. The unilateral reversal of  a  decision
           by one of the two parents could not change the fact situation as
           to the minor being an  ordinary  resident  of  Delhi,  when  the
           decision was taken jointly by both the parents.”

          26. The Court  on  facts  rejected  the  contention  of  the
              husband in that case  that  the  minor  child  has  been
              removed from the jurisdiction of the American Courts  in
              contravention  of  the  orders  passed  by   them.    In
              Paragraph 64, the Court observed as follows:-
           “64. Secondly, the respondent’s case that the minor was  removed
           from the jurisdiction of the American courts in contravention of
           the orders passed by them, is not factually correct.  Unlike  V.
           Ravi Chandran case, where the minor was removed in violation  of
           an order passed by the American court there were no  proceedings
           between the parties in any court in America before they came  to
           India with the minor. Such proceedings 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  is,
           therefore, untenable.”

          27. These observations clearly are of no assistance  to  the
              appellant  herein.   She   had   participated   in   the
              proceedings in America for two 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  more  than  5  days.
              The appellant, therefore, can not  be  allowed  to  take
              advantage of her own wrong.  Therefore, the present case
              would be squarely covered by the ratio  of  law  in  the
              case of V. Ravichandran (supra).

          28. The Courts have taken cognizance of growing practice  of
              children being removed from one country to another  just
              to put pressure/influence the legal proceedings that are
              usually  pending  in  these   cases   in   relation   to
              irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In the case  of  Re
              H. (Infants) (supra), Willmer, L.J., as  long  as  1961,
              observed as follows :
           “…….The sudden and unauthorized removal  of  children  from  one
           country to another is far too  frequent  nowadays,  and,  as  it
           seems to me, it is the duty of all courts in all countries to do
           all they can to ensure that  the  wrongdoer  does  not  gain  an
           advantage by his wrongdoing.”

          29. Further, in V. Ravichandran’s case (supra), even  though
              the Court had directed that the child will be taken back
              to America, this Court took assurances from the  husband
              that he would bear all the travelling expenses and  make
              suitable arrangements for respondent No.6 in the  U.S.A.
              He had also given an undertaking that he would take  out
              necessary application for the removal of the Red  Corner
              Notice so that the wife was not arrested on  arrival  in

          30. After the arguments in this matter had  been  concluded,
              we interviewed at length the husband and wife.
The  wife
              was prepared to go back to the USA  and  live  with  her
However,  the  husband  was  not  prepared  to
              cohabit with the wife.
Sadly, therefore,  there  was  no
              chance of reconciliation between the  parties.  
We  are
              conscious of the  fact  that  the  child  has  now  been
              residing in India since 17th July, 2008.  He  is  now  8
              years of age.
In spite of the manner in which the child
              has been brought to India, it is quite evident  that  he
              has been studying at one  of  the  best  English  medium
When we interviewed  the  child,  it  appeared
              that he had been thoroughly  brain  washed  against  the
We, therefore, permitted the father to be alone
              with the child for about three hours in the  chamber  of
              Nijjar, J. and after the meeting the child seemed to  be
              not wholly averse to meeting the father again.
All  said
              and done, in such circumstances, the Court is left  with
              making a very unpleasant decision.
Either way,  certain
              collateral damage being caused to the child can  not  be
The  facts  narrated  above   would   clearly
              indicate that the mother is singularly  responsible  for
              removal of the  child  from  the  jurisdiction  of  U.S.
In view of the above,  we  are  constrained  to
              pass the following order:-

          31. The directions issued by the High Court in the  impugned
              order  are  upheld  with  the  following  additions  and
           Direction No.(iv) of the High Court shall be substituted by  the
           following :

           “(iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements  for  the
           stay  of  the  respondent  No.7  and  the  child   in   suitable
           accommodation in a locality according to her status prior to the
           dissolution of marriage for a period of three  months  on  their
           landing in USA.”

           Direction No.(vi) – Prior to making any travel arrangements  for
           the 7th respondent and Anand,  the  petitioner  shall  move  the
           Court of Competent Jurisdiction in USA  for  withdrawal  of  the
           bailable warrants issued against the respondent No.7  to  enable
           her to attend the custody proceedings in the US Courts.

           Direction No.(viii) – Upon the  bailable  warrants  having  been
           withdrawn, the petitioner  shall  personally  escort  respondent
           No.7 and Anand from India to the USA.

          32. With these observations, the judgment of the High  Court
              is upheld and the Criminal Appeals No.934-936 of 2013  @
              SLP(Crl.) Nos. 10606-10608 of 2010 are hereby dismissed.

          33. Before parting with this order, we may also notice  here
              that the respondent (husband) filed  a  Criminal  Appeal
              No. 937 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3335 of 2012,  challenging
              the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the High Court of
              Andhra Pradesh. 
As noticed earlier, the aforesaid  order
              was  passed  in  the  criminal  petition  filed  by  the
              respondent husband, seeking  quashing  of  the  criminal
              complaint  filed  by  the  appellant/wife  against   the
              respondent himself and his parents under Sections 498-A,
              506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the  Dowry  Prohibition
              Act, 1961. 
Since  no  arguments  were  advanced  in  the
              aforesaid  matter,  let  this  appeal  be   listed   for
              arguments separately.

                                              [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

      New Delhi                               ………………………………J.
      July  16,  2013                            [Pinaki  Chandra

[1]    (1984) 3 SCC 698
[2]    (2010) 1 SCC 174
[3]    (2010) 1 SCC 591
[4]    (1998) 1 SCC 112
[5]    (2000) 3 SCC 14
[6]    (2011) 6 SCC 479
[7]    (1987) 1 SCC 42
[8]    (1966) 1 W.L.R. 381 (Ch & CA) ; (1966) 1 All ER 886


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.