Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – s.9 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Custody of children – Respondenthusband, a U.S. Citizen married the petitioner-wife in U.S. – After the birth of their daughter, who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth, petitioner-wife also obtained U.S. citizenship – After some time, both the parties visited India – Thereafter, petitioner-wife, who was pregnant at that time refused to return to the U.S. – Respondenthusband instituted custody proceedings before the U.S. County Court – The U.S. Country Court passed an ex-parte interim order and granted temporary custody of both children to the respondenthusband with supervised visitation rights to the petitioner-wife – The petitioner-wife approached the Family Court in India and sought sole & permanent custody of both the children – The Family Court in India held that the paramount interest of the children would lie in shared parenting by the parties in the U.S. and the petitioner-wife was not entitled to the sole custody of the children – Aggrieved, the petitioner-wife filed appeal before the High Court in India, which was dismissed – Thereafter, respondent-husband filed writ of Habeas Corpus before the High Court in India to direct the petitioner-wife to produce the minor children – The High Court directed the petitioner-wife to return to the U.S. along with the two minor children – High Court further directed the respondent-husband to move the Superior Court in U.S. to recall earlier orders of the U.S. County Court which directed temporary physical and legal custody of the minor children to him and directed children to remain in custody of petitioner-wife when she lands in U.S. – In compliance, respondenthusband submitted affidavit to the said effect and also obtained order from the Superior Court as per direction of the High Court – The Superior Court in U.S. granted custody of the children to the petitioner-wife until further custody orders were determined by the Court after hearing both the parties – Pursuant thereto, High Court in India directed the petitioner-wife to return to the U.S. along with both the children – Petitioner-wife challenged the orders of the High Court before the Supreme Court of India – Held: The following directions were issued: The petitioner-wife to return to U.S. along with two minor children – If petitioner-wife chooses not to return to the matrimonial home, then respondent-husband to provide her suitable accommodation – The petitioner-wife to provide unsupervised access to the respondent-husband every weekend – If petitioner-wife chooses not to jointly practice with respondenthusband at their clinic, then parties to take steps to divide the assets equally – The respondent-husband to get children admitted to a reputed school in the vicinity – The respondent-husband to further provide U.S. $8000 per month to the petitioner-wife to meet all her expenses – Further, after the division of assets, both the parties to share equally the expenses towards the education and upbringing of the children.
Disposing of the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: The Court disposed of both the Special Leave Petitions and passed the following directions:i.
ii.
The parties will jointly apply to the U.S. Embassy for renewal of the U.S. Passport of their daughter and for issuance of an American passport for their son. The Petitioner – wife along with the two minor children will return to the U.S. after the issuance of the Passports of the minor children.
If the Petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, the children will be handed over to the Respondent – husband who will take them back to the U.S.
iii.
The Respondent – husband offered that upon returning to the U.S., the Petitioner – wife may return to the matrimonial home.
If the Petitioner – wife, however, chooses to live independently, the Respondent – husband will provide suitable accommodation to the Petitioner – wife with all basic amenities.
In the alternative, the Petitioner – wife may identify a suitable accommodation, in the same vicinity so that the Respondent – husband has access to the children.
iv.
The Petitioner – wife undertakes to provide visitation and unsupervised access to the Respondent – husband every weekend, which arrangement may be modified by a Court of competent jurisdiction in the U.S.
v.
The Respondent – husband offered that upon returning to the U.S., the Petitioner – wife may continue to practice dentistry at their joint clinic.
If the Petitioner – wife is not interested to jointly practice with the Respondent – husband at their clinic, the parties may take steps to divide the assets equally. The division of assets shall be completed within a period of 4 months.
vi.
The Respondent – husband will take steps to get the children admitted to a reputed school in the vicinity.
vii.
The Respondent – husband has agreed to provide an amount of $8000 to the Petitioner – wife to meet all her expenses.
The amount to be deposited in the Escrow Account by the Respondent – husband as a security to ensure compliance of the payment terms.
viii. After the assets are divided, both parties will share equally the expenses towards the education and upbringing of the children.
ix.
The Petitioner – wife has instituted Divorce proceedings against the Respondent – husband before the Family Court in India. The Petitioner – wife has agreed to withdraw the said divorce proceedings. [Para 7][1154-H; 1155-A-H; 1156-A-H; 1157-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.