Thursday, October 14, 2010

SC fiat on summoning of accused in criminal cases

SC fiat on summoning of accused in criminal cases

13 oct 2010

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that summoning of accused persons cannot be withheld merely on the ground that it will hurt the interests of other accused who are "well-known" or just because the witnesses are related to the complainant.
A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha in an order ticked off a trial court for refusing to summon certain accused merely because they were "well-known persons" and the Karnataka High Court for refusing the plea because of certain delay.

The apex court passed the order while upholding an appeal filed by the complainant Bangarayya in a criminal case challenging the refusal of the two courts to summon additional witnesses during the trial.


On a complaint filed on September 1, 2002, a case was registered against 17 persons, but police, after investigation, submitted chargesheets against only 14 persons under IPC Sections 143, 147, 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (causing hurt), 427(damage to property), 504 (breach of public peace)and 506 (criminal intimidation). No chargesheet was filed against accused Nos 2, 3 and 6 named in the FIR.
The complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning of the three other accused. The State also also supported the plea for summoning of the three accused.

However, the trial court rejected the plea by taking the view that the two witnesses were related to the complainant and no independent witness had been examined before him.

The trial court observed that it would further delay the matter as some of the other accused were "teachers and well-known persons" and they would suffer due to the delay caused by summoning the additional accused.

Aggrieved by the decision, the complainant approached the High Court which dismissed his plea by citing delay in filing of the application following which he appealed in the Supreme Court.

Rejecting the reasonings, the apex court said the two witnesses were examined on August 24, 2007 and February 2, 2008 respectively and the application for summoning three other accused was filed on March 6, 2008.

"We are unable to see where was the delay. In those facts it is quite unreasonable to hold that the application was made after long delay and was, therefore, liable to be rejected. "The reason assigned by the trial court is equally untenable. The two witnesses being related to the complainant or the accused already before the court, being 'teachers and well-known persons' can be no ground to reject the petition under section 319 of the Code for summoning some other persons as well for facing the trial," the apex court observed.


It directed the trial court to consider afresh the plea for summoning of the additional accused.

PTI

http://www.zeenews.com/news661290.html

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Delhi HC- ipc506/34 Frivolous petition by wife to harass husband and his relatives dismissed with costs

Crl. Revision  Pet. No.456 of 2006   Anjali Aggarwal v State & Ors.   

 

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  
             Date of Reserve: September 7th,  2010    Date of Order:  September 22nd  , 2010

  Anjali Aggarwal            ...Petitioner         

  Versus  

  State & Ors.              ...Respondents   

Counsels:
Mr. J.C. Mahendroo for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1.  Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?
3.  Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

1.  By way of present petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. petitioner sought setting aside of the judgment dated 10th
February 2006 passed by leaned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting respondents no.2 and 3 for the offences under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 


2.    The revision petitioner in her complaint to police had alleged that on 26th September 1992, she had come to Tis Hazari Courts in a child custody  case.  Respondent Sudershan Kumar  Bagrodia, her ex-husband, who was a party in the custody case had come to Tis Hazari Courts along with  his sister Smt. Jai Shree Bindal and when she was near gate no.2 of Tis Hazari Courts, both the respondents stopped her and threatened that she should  stop coming to the Court otherwise she would be killed. She alleged that they tried to snatch the child from her and slapped her. She then went  to the police station to lodge a report and her report was recorded and after investigation, challan was filed. 


3.  The learned trial court after calling the records of the custody case pending between the parties observed that on 26th  September 1992, there was no date of the custody case between the parties.  The learned trial  court  also, after appreciating the testimony of complainant and her cross examination, concluded  that the child was not with her on that day. The learned trial court found that  the complaint made by the petitioner/ complainant was a false complaint and, therefore, acquitted the respondents. 

4.  In her revision petition, the petitioner/complainant had taken the stand that on 26th September 1992, there was no hearing in the court and she had taken the child for meeting with the husband. Thus, the stand taken by the petitioner in revision is contrary
to her statement made in the trial court wherein she had stated that she had appeared on that day in custody case of her child before the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal as her case was going on in the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal. I consider that in  a  revision petition, this Court cannot consider a new plea of fact which was not raised before trial court. Moreover, her version in the revision petition is belied by her version in FIR also wherein she had stated that on 26th  September 1992, there was a date of the case. 

5.  I find that the present revision petition was another step taken by the petitioner to harass her husband and his family members. This petition being a frivolous  petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-.    

September 22nd, 2010                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/23-09-2010/SND22092010CRLR4562006.pdf

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Delhi HC- NRI 498a Quash-Jurisdictional (Section 4 IPC and Section 188 Cr.P.C.) and Limitaion bar U/s 468 crpc-Misuse of criminal justice system as a tool of vengeance

Crl. MC No.3329/2009    Sanjeev Majoo & Ors. v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)   
*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  
             Date of Reserve: August 25th , 2010  
Date of Order:  September 22, 2010  Crl. M.C. No.3329 of 2009          22.09.2010
  Sanjeev Majoo & Ors.          ...Petitioners         
  Versus  
  State Govt. of NCT of Delhi          ...Respondents   
Counsels:
Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukul Kumar, Mr. B.R. Sharma and Mr.
Satpal Singh for petitioners.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for respondent/State.
Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Advocate for complainant 
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1.  Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes.
2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?          Yes.
3.  Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?        Yes.
JUDGMENT
1.  This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 227 of the Constitution of India  has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.97 of 2009 dated 7th  July,  2009 registered against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of  IPC at police station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi. 
2.  It is an undisputed  fact that petitioner no.1 Mr. Sanjeev Majoo and the  complainant i.e. wife Ms. Ruchi Majoo, both are citizens of USA and the marriage  between them had taken place on 12th  December 1996  at Delhi. Even at the time of engagement, Ms. Ruchi Majoo and Mr. Sanjeev Majoo were in America and engagement  ceremony had taken place in Detroit, USA at the house of uncle of Ms. Ruchi Majoo in September 1996. After marriage, the parties left for USA, lived there as US citizens. Ms. Ruchi Majoo gave birth to one son namely master Kush,  who became US citizen  by birth. However, it appears that the life was not happy  for them  and Ms. Ruchi Majoo served a legal notice dated 8th July, 2008 on Mr. Sanjeev Majoo through her advocate inter alia, making following allegations: 

“2.  That however, immediately after the marriage, your conduct had been unbecoming of a good husband. My client was not earning at that time. You did not take care of  her financial requirements in an alien country and as a result she had to borrow from her father and family from time to time even  for her  personal needs. So much was your negative attitude towards her that she had to remain most of the times confined in the apartment where you and my client had shifted. 
3.  Even then for no justifiable reason you had been often scolding and rebuking my client and also adversely commenting on her mannerism and way of dressing, even privately and in the presence of your friends and relations, thereby causing humiliation to her. 
4.    That during the year 1997 when you and my client were in the USA, my client also came to know of your having extra-marital relationship with a married girl Neetu whose husband  had been threatening to cause physical harm to my client as well as to you. On coming to know of this, you had assured my client that you would mend your ways and as such my client agreed to pardon you at that time. 
5.  That during my client’s stay  in the USA she also came to know that you were also often having physical relationship with different women at time in Motel and/or some other  places and you were caught on one of such occasion. Even after you had got a job in New Jersey, after completing your studies, you did not take care of the financial needs and daily expenses of my client who was being forced to borrow from her family, which was a humiliating experience for my client. You did not even permit her to pursue her further studies thereby causing her physical, mental paid and  anguish. Every time you would create such a situation thereby forcing my client to withdraw to her room. You would pick up fights and arguments with her for no reason or rhyme thereby disturbing her peace of mind. 
  Xxxxxxx
7.  That somewhere in the year  2002, you also injured my client physically in the presence of baby  sitter who  was persuaded not to call the police at the insistence of my client who was trying to make the marriage work. You again apologized and also assured my client that in future you shall take care of the things. In between you had also been for counseling as you realized that your behavior was not normal. With the minor son also you were abusive and also caused hurt by pinching him hard on his body. You were also rough to him most of the times. This abusive behavior continues. 
  Xxxxxxxxx
9.  That there are a large number of instances of occasions when your cruel conduct continued of which you are aware of and the same are not being repeated herein. You and your parents had also been  complaining of inadequate dowry to my client. Whatever my client had brought as Istridhan was also retained partly by you and partly by your parents. Whenever my client demanded the Istridhan, o n the pretext that the same is lying in safe custody, you had been refusing to give that to my client. 
  Xxxxxx
12.  You were persuaded to go for counseling twice but you left both times unfinished citing one or the other reason. You had also informed my client that in your office also, you had been warned of your  aggressive  behavior and  asked my client to go for some kind of improvement training so that you could know how to work as a group member. 
  xxxxx
15.  That accordingly on behalf of my client, I am to inform you that my client is not interested in going back to you to USA and she is trying to work out an alternate suitable arrangement for herself and her minor son and as such you are required not to co me and visit my client’s father house. My client is also seeking appropriate legal advice to take such legal steps which may be required for the welfare of the minor son as well as for herself  which my client is likely to take shortly which could include divorce proceedings in appropriate court including in US and  would also include claim of rights in respect of matrimonial assets. However, should you force your entry into my client’s father house in New Delhi, then my client and her father will take appropriate action against you in accordance with law.”    

3.  As things turned out, Ms. Ruchi Majoo came to India with her son and a custody battle  for the son  is going on between the parties. Mr. Sanjeev Majoo, petitioner no.1 herein, applied for divorce before the Court in USA and a decree of divorce was granted by the US Court on 13th May, 2009 whereby rights of Ms. Ruchi Majoo wife were decided by the Court in USA and following arrangement was made: 

“10.  The Respondent is awarded the following items of  community property as her sole and separate property subject to all liens ad encumbrances thereon: 
A.  Furniture, furnishing, and personal effects in her possession; 
B.  Gold jewelry in her possession; 
C.  Bank of America bank account in her name; 
D.  Emigrant Direct bank account in her name; 
E.  Standard Chartered bank account in her name; 
F.  Bank accounts in India in Respondent’s name; 
G.  Real property in India in Respondent’s name;
   
4.  Ms. Ruchi Majoo in her communication to the Superior Court at California, USA on 22nd  April, 2009 had informed the Court as under: 

“1.  I do not own any Real estate in India. The information  given by Mr. Sanjeev Majoo is wrong and needs to be corrected.

2.  All my jewelry excepting two items of jewelry and a ring are  in my home at 462, Cremona Way, Oak Park, CA, where my, My Sanjeev Majoo stays and at the Residence of my’s parents, in Udaipur, India. This forms a part of my dowry given by my family at the time of my marriage in India and during the course of our married life, which is customary as per Indian traditions. 
3.  I have Indian Rupees 4,10,000/- (equivalent to USD 10k) in  Indian banks, which was a gift from my family and not a part of my income.    This money was transferred by me from USA (Bank of America) to India much before I left USA for India.” 
5.  However, in the FIR which Ms. Ruchi Majoo lodged against Mr. Sanjeev Majoo and her father in law, mother in law and brother in law, she made allegations that even before her marriage, her father in law and mother in law had told that her parents should keep in mind the expenditure on education of Mr. Sanjeev Majoo while considering the dowry and the dowry should commensurate with the status of in laws and so  a  lot of dowry was given at the time of marriage including jewelry, clothes and gazettes. After marriage a locker was opened at Udaipur in the joint name of herself, her husband and mother in law and whole lot of articles and expensive gifts were retained by in-laws at Udaipur. She further alleged that even when in 1997, when her mother in  law was in USA, she passed sarcastic remarks regarding insufficient dowry. In 1999, she had come to attend the marriage of  husband’s  brother Mr.  Rajeev Majoo and gone to Udaipur. Even during that period, her in-laws put consistent pressure and demanded more money. She was permitted to open locker in Udaipur for wearing jewelry on the occasion of marriage but again the jewelry was kept in the locker and she was not allowed to take her items.  Thereafter, she made allegations of what transpired between her and her husband in USA from 1997 onwards. She stated that her matrimonial life went through rough weathers and it became difficult for her to stay in USA with her husband anymore. She decided to come to India with the child in December 2004. In December 2004, her in laws also came to India and threatened her to return to USA or else a situation would be created that she would be divorced by her husband. She came to Delhi and requested her to go back to USA and promised that things will improve. She went back to USA on this promise  in  January,  2005.  Again  her  husband’s  attitude  did  not improve and she narrated what happened in USA between her and her husband. Ultimately in January 2008, she had told her husband that she would no more  live  with him as  she  had planned to live separately from him with her son. On this, her husband suggested that she should go to India along with  the  child for summer vacation and he would also accompany her since had had to see his parents. She came to his parent’s house. She went on narrating  the sequence of incidents which took place in Delhi between her and her husband including the legal battle for taking custody of her son Kush. Both she and her husband exchanged emails regarding their son and she leveled allegations against her husband about threats of filing a kidnapping case against her  in USA and obtaining of divorce by her husband from US Court. Ultimately, she recorded in her complaint that the facts written by her showed that she had been treated with cruelty both physically and mentally because of willful conduct of her husband,  her parents  in  law and her brother in law. 

6.   It is apparent that the complainant, a citizen of USA, had all along lived in USA with her son and husband, away from her in laws but filed this FIR against her mother in law, father in law, brother in law and her husband so as to misuse criminal justice system as a tool of vengeance. From perusal of her statement made in California Court, it is apparent  that entire scene of occurrence was USA, her in laws had no say in their married life. In California court, she had categorically stated that all her jewelry was lying in her US house. She nowhere stated that her jewelry was lying with her in laws but in FIR against her in law, she suddenly discovered that she had a locker in Udaipur. She does not disclose the locker number  or the bank where the locker was, the date of opening of locker and what jewelry were lying in it and submits that her in laws in 1997 and 1998 had asked her to keep her jewelry there. While in 2008, she told the California Court that her entire jewelry was with her at her house in USA, California. 
7.  Even if it is believed that in 1996, her in laws had expressed desire that the dowry must commensurate with the status,  firstly she had not alleged any demand, still if she considered this as demand, she  was at liberty to get a case registered under Dowry Prohibition Act at that time. There are no allegations of cruelty against in laws. Therefore, no offence under Section 498A IPC was made out against her in laws on the basis of allegations made by her in the FIR even if every allegation is considered true. As far as Mr. Sanjeev Majoo is concerned, the complainant and Mr. Sanjeev Majoo had lived in USA and all allegations of cruelty are of USA. No offence was committed within the jurisdiction of this country. Thus, no offence could have been registered against any of the petitioners/ accused persons under Section 498A  or 406 IPC  in India. Even otherwise, since both of them were American Citizens and the matrimonial offence, if committed, were committed in USA,  the Court at India would have no jurisdiction to proceed against Mr. Sanjeev Majoo. All persons who commit crime in India can be tried in India whether they are foreign or Indian citizens, but Section 4 IPC puts a bar on the scope of applicability of territorial jurisdiction to the courts of India to try a case, cause of action of which had taken place outside the geographical limits only in respect of Indian citizens. Where the accused is not a citizen of India and the cause of action/ offence has not been committed within India, in view of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 Cr.P.C, the trial of offence against the person cannot proceed in India. Section 188 Cr.P.C reads as under: 
188. Offence committed outside India.
When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) By a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) By a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft
registered in India.
He may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been
committed at any place within India at which he may be found:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding
sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried
in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.”
8.  Mr. Sanjeev Majoo in this case and the complainant in this case both being American citizens and the alleged matrimonial cruelties having taken place in America, police and courts in India  did not have jurisdiction  to enquire into or conduct trial of offence. 
9.  In view of the facts disclosed from the FIR, even if all the facts stated in FIR are considered true, no offence was made out against father in law, brother in law, mother in law.  If any offence is made out cognizance of it was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. As far as Mr. Sanjeev Majoo is concerned , FIR could not have been registered in view of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 Cr.P.C. 
10.  In the result, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.97 of 2009 dated 7th  July, 2009 registered against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC at police station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
11.  The petition stands allowed.          
September22,  2010                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
************************
PS- this is same woman who had filed Guardianship case and was dismissed by Justice Dhingra on Jurisdictional grounds and later the Mother and WCD/NCW challenged the HC (Dhingra’s) order in SC where it is still pending

 

Related news on the case

Latest on the GWA CASE Pending in SC
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/dc%20922010p.txt
ITEM NO.1                   COURT NO.6                 SECTION XIV


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

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9220/2010

(From the judgment and order dated 08/03/2010 in            CMM No. 448/2009   of
The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)

RUCHI MAJOO                                                 Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SANJEEV MAJOO                                               Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and
prayer for interim relief ))


Date: 05/10/2010    This Petition was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR


For Petitioner(s)        Ms.   Indira Jaising, ASG
Mr.   Sanjay Parikh, Adv.
Mr.   Anish R. Shah, Adv.
Ms.   Mamta Saxena, Adv.
Mr.   Ashish Bhan, Adv.
Ms.   Soumya Ray, Adv.
Mr.   A. N. Singh, Adv.
Ms.   Anitha Shenoy,Adv.


For Respondent(s)        Mr. Pallav Shisodia, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kumar,Adv.



UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

In this case, the parties, who are of

Indian origin, had gone to USA and had a child

there,   who    having   been   born   in   USA   has   US

citizenship.
-1-


SLP(Civil) No.9220/2010

The parties also took up           US citizenship.

Thereafter, the petitioner (wife) returned to

India    and    filed   a     petition     for   custody   and

guardianship,        which     is    pending     before    the

District Court, Delhi.              At the same time, the

husband also filed a petition for guardianship

in the Superior Court of California, USA which

has been allowed.        The District Judge III (west)

Delhi dismissed the husband's application for

dismissing the wife's petition.

The    Delhi   High       Court   has   allowed   the

petition filed by the husband-respondent herein,

and dismissed the Guardianship petition filed by

the wife on the ground that the District Judge,

Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the said

petition.

This      matter           pertains     to   private

International law.           Hence, we would like to get

the     assistance      of     the    Indian     Society    of

International law, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi,

as it has expertise in the matter.               Issue notice

to the Indian Society of International Law which

is requested to assist us as amicus curiae in

the matter.        The Indian Society of International
Law     is    requested     to       depute     some    expert       in

private international law to appear before us to

assist us in the matter.

-2-



-3-

In the meantime, the interim order passed

by    this Court will continue.                     Copies of the

proceedings      and    other        relevant       papers    may    be

forwarded       forthwith      by     the     Registry       of   this

Court    to    the   Indian      Society       of    International

Law, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi.




Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel

has    stated    that     he    recuses       himself    from       any

exercise      undertaken       by     the    Indian    Society       of

International Law, since, he is a member of the

executive       council    of       the     Society    and    he     is

appearing for the petitioner in this case.



List this matter on 9th November, 2010.




(Deepak Joshi)                                  (Indu Satija)
Sr. P.A.                                       Court Master











-----

ITEM NO.1                   COURT NO.11                SECTION XIV
              S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9220/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 08/03/2010 in CMM No. 448/2009 of
the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)
RUCHI MAJOO                      Petitioner(s)
                   VERSUS
SANJEEV MAJOO                    Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief)
Date: 15/09/2010    This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
For Petitioner(s)
  Ms.    Indira Jai Sing, ASG
                     Mr.    Sanjay Parekh, Adv.
                     Mr.    Anish R. Shah, Adv.
                     Ms.    Soumya Ray, Adv.
                     Mr.    Ashish Bhan, Adv.
                     Ms.    Mamta Saxena, Adv.
                     Ms.    Smidhi Sinha, Adv.
                     Ms.    Sonam Anand, Adv.
                     Mr.    Mukul Kumar, Adv. (NP)
For Respondent(s)  
                     Mr.    Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
                     Mr.    Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
                     Mr.    Mukul Kumar, Adv.
                     Mr.    Sudhir Pal Singh, Adv.
                     Ms.    Anitha Shenoy, Adv. (NP)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
  O R D E R
                 Put up before a Bench of which one of us (Aftam
          Alam, J.) is not a member.
            (N.S.K. Kamesh)                          (S.S.R. Krishna)
              Court Master                             Court Master




Court restrains Interpol from taking custody of child from NRI


Press Trust of India, Friday March 26, 2010, New Delhi


The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custody of a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examine the crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonial disputes if the couple is foreign citizens.


A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal and Deepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child and posted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a Delhi High Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was US citizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in that country's court. The high court had passed the order while setting aside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the help of the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India, following which the woman moved the apex court. (Custody battle: A child's wait for justice)
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter for early hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significance involving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonial disputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking law officer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear in private disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Bench that Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment of wife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointed out that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives to come to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were not available in other countries. The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custody of a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examine the crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonial disputes if the couple is foreign citizens.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal and Deepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child and posted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a Delhi High Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was US citizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in that country's court. The high court had passed the order while setting aside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the help of the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India, following which the woman moved the apex court.
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter for early hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significance involving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonial disputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking law officer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear in private disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Bench that Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment of wife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointed out that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives to come to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were not available in other countries.


http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/court-restrains-interpol-from-taking-custody-of-child-from-nri-18497.php


Court restrains Interpol from taking custody of child from NRI



The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custody of a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examine the crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonial disputes if the couple is foreign citizens.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal and Deepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child and posted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a Delhi High Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was US citizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in that country's court. The high court had passed the order while setting aside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the help of the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India, following which the woman moved the apex court. (Custody battle: A child's wait for justice)
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter for early hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significance involving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonial disputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking law officer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear in private disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Bench that Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment of wife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointed out that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives to come to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were not available in other countries. The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custody of a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examine the crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonial disputes if the couple is foreign citizens.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal and Deepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child and posted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a Delhi High Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was US citizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in that country's court. The high court had passed the order while setting aside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the help of the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India, following which the woman moved the apex court.
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter for early hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significance involving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonial disputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking law officer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear in private disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Bench that Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment of wife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointed out that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives to come to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were not available in other countries.