Patricia Sood Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Crl) No. 194 of 1988.
Petitioner: Patricia Sood
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl) No. 194 of 1988.
Judges: O.L.OZA, B.C.RAY & K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 10, 1988
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The female minor child is two years of age. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that an order for temporary custody of the child was passed by American Court in New York in favour of the petitioner and the respondent thereafter smuggled the child and brought the child to India. In the circumstances of the case, the present writ petition was filed. The child had to be recovered by the police under orders of this Court. We do not want to go into the merits. In our opinion, custody of the child will have to be entrusted to the mother. It is, however, open to the respondent father, if he so chooses to agitate his rights in the United States. He can agitate the matter before the competent Court, if he has any grievance against this order. It is clear that being mother, at this stage seeing the age of the child, the mother’s custody would be the proper custody.
2. As regards child passport we had directed counsel for the Union of India to impound the passport. It is, therefore, directed that the respondent shall return the passport of the child to the mother and if it is not done, then the police authorities will secure the passport of the child and hand it over to the mother.
3. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- to Mrs.A.V.Kumar General Secretary, Delhi Council for child Welfare, Qudsia Bagh, Yamuna Marg, Delhi-54 for the expenses of keeping the child during these three days in that institution.
4. The respondent/father, if so chooses may leave India.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The female minor child is two years of age. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that an order for temporary custody of the child was passed by American Court in New York in favour of the petitioner and the respondent thereafter smuggled the child and brought the child to India. In the circumstances of the case, the present writ petition was filed. The child had to be recovered by the police under orders of this Court. We do not want to go into the merits. In our opinion, custody of the child will have to be entrusted to the mother. It is, however, open to the respondent father, if he so chooses to agitate his rights in the United States. He can agitate the matter before the competent Court, if he has any grievance against this order. It is clear that being mother, at this stage seeing the age of the child, the mother’s custody would be the proper custody.
2. As regards child passport we had directed counsel for the Union of India to impound the passport. It is, therefore, directed that the respondent shall return the passport of the child to the mother and if it is not done, then the police authorities will secure the passport of the child and hand it over to the mother.
3. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- to Mrs.A.V.Kumar General Secretary, Delhi Council for child Welfare, Qudsia Bagh, Yamuna Marg, Delhi-54 for the expenses of keeping the child during these three days in that institution.
4. The respondent/father, if so chooses may leave India.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
