Jurisdiction of court when one parent abduct child
We do not burden ourselves with extensive case law cited by learned counsel for the parties for the reason learned counsel agreed that in parental abduction cases, where a spouse is residing separately or otherwise from the opposite spouse, in a particular country, and flees from the said country to her original home country along with the minor child born to the parties, and the issue of custody arises in the Court within territorial jurisdiction whereof the spouse and the minor child ordinarily reside, post abduction, the legal principles to be kept in mind are that irrespective of whether the country of the Court concerned is or is not a signatory to the 'Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980' (popularly known as the Hague Convention), principles embodied in the Convention must be kept in mind. This would mean that if there is an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction in the country wherein the abduction took place, the said order has to be respected. The disadvantage to the other spouse has also to be kept in view. One has to keep in mind the injury caused to the mind of the child who is uprooted all of a sudden from a familiar surrounding; the psychological damage caused to the child due to sudden removal from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar environment. Injustice caused to the opposite spouse. The welfare principle i.e. the risk of harm while returning the child to the foreign shores; the welfare and interest of the child.
Delhi High Court
Philip David Dexter vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 April, 2013
