LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     17 May 2011

Indian courts can decide NRI couples matri. and guardianship

 

 

This judgment is a distinguishing Judgment so far as PAS (parental alienation syndrome which is addendum clinical subject matter even in yet to publish DSM - V bible for psychiatrists worldwide) is concerned since my awareness till date of SC not yet recognizing PAS inspite of Chennai HC in recent past giving judgment no. of times on effects of PAS on alienated children of warring couples. Hence I find this Judgment a path breaking Judgment from Apex Court and I quote from the judgment the highlighted para for easy reference in Court practice by fellow ld. Advocates;



“For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated. What the appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despire for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father's care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life. Nor can the role of the father in his upbringing and grooming to face the realities of life be undermined. It is in that view important for the child's healthy growth that we grant to the father visitation rights; that will enable the two to stay in touch and share moments of joy, learning and happiness with each other. Since the respondent is living in another continent such contact cannot be for obvious reasons as frequent as it may have been if they were in the same city. But the forbidding distance that separates the two would   get   reduced thanks to the modern technology in telecommunications. The appellant has been according to the respondent    persistently    preventing even telephonic contact between the father and the son. May be the son has been so poisoned against him that he does not evince any interest in the father. Be that as it may telephonic contact shall not be prevented by   the   appellant   for   any   reason   whatsoever   and    shall   be encouraged at all reasonable time. Video conferencing may also be possible between the two which too shall not only be permitted but encouraged by the appellant.


Besides, the father shall be free to visit the minor in
India at any
time of the year and meet him for two hours on a daily basis,
unhindered by any impediment from the mother or her parents or
anyone else for that matter. The place where the meeting can take
place shall be indicated by the trial Court after verifying the
convenience of both the parties in this regard. The trial Court shall
pass necessary orders in this regard without delay and without
permitting any dilatory tactics in the matter.”
                                        

                                            

ITEM No. 1A                       Court No. 8                SECTION XIV/II
(For Judgment)

          S U P R E M E         C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                                RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4435 OF 2011 @ SLP (C) No. 9220 of 2010


RUCHI MAJOO                                      Appellant (s)

                                    VERSUS

 SANJEEV MAJOO                                    Respondent (s)

With Crl. A. No. 1184/2011 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10362 of 2010

Date :   13/05/2011      

These    Petitions were called on for judgment today.

For Appellant (s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Kumar, Adv.


Hon'ble     Mr.    Justice   T.    S.   Thakur
     pronounced      the  Judgment     of   the   Bench   comprising      Hon'ble   Mr.    Justice   V.S. Sirpurkar and His Lordship

Civil Appeal No. 4435 of 2011
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 9220 of 2010:

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of signed judgment.

Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2011
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10362 of 2010)

Leave granted.

The     appeal   is   dismissed    in   terms   of    signed
judgment.


(Pardeep Kumar)               (Shashi Bala Vij)
 Court Master                 Assistant Registrar
Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.


Full text Judgment source:

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/dc%20922010p.txt



Download attach PDF full text of Judgment


PS: It is going to be reported soon in appropriate Reporter as this Judgment came 2-3 days ago.

  



Learning

 3 Replies

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     19 May 2011

Where the marriage is performed is having jurisdiction to file a divorce case.  You can file the case in India, let the child be with you and let your husband claim for the child.  you can refer the above citation referred by the learned member


(Guest)

I will reference this case in my child custody hearing in the United States on Feb 09. those who want a feedback on what the US Courts have to say, please PM me.

Thanks TajobsIndia.

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     18 January 2012

good find Tajobs,

 

 

Regards,

 

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register