Brief backgorund
498a/406 case filed by ruch majoo was quashed by Justice dhingra
http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/10/delhi-hc-nri-498a-quash-jurisdictional.html
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
here is the GWA case http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/09-03-2010/SND08032010CMM4482009.pdf
Latest 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.
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.
Thanks for this posting.
ReplyDeleteYour blog is very knowledgeable!! Keep it always updated.
Cobleys Child Custody Solicitors Family Law team deal with all matters relating to Children Law.