NDLI: Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1890: s.9 Guardian and Wards Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: s.9 - Jurisdiction of the court to entertain claim for grant of custody of a minor - Held: . Any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court as regards the custody of the minor has to be seen in the context of the averments made in the pleadings of the parties and the requirement of s. 9 - Bare reading of s. 9 shows that the solitary test for determining the jurisdiction of the court u/s. 9 of the Act is the 'ordinary residence' of the minor- The expression used is "where the minor ordinarily resides"...;. Whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is primarily a question of intention which in tum is a question of fact- In the instant case, the correspondence exchanged between the parents of the minor clearly showed that the minor was ordinarily residing with . the mother-appellant in Delhi and was admitted to a school and studying for the past three years - The father-respondent continued to support that decision even when he was far away from any duress and coercion alleged by him till the time he suddenly changed his mind and started accusing the appellant of abduction - High Court failed to notice these aspects and fell in error in accepting the version of the respondent and dismissing the application filed by the appellant for custody of the minor on the ground that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the same - Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction: Parens Patraie jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of the court to entertain claim for grant of custody of a minor - Recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts- Held: Courts in India are bound to determine the validity of foreign decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of s.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002 - The duty of Court exercising its Parens Patraie jurisdiction as in cases involving custody of minor children is onerous - Welfare of the minor in such cases being the paramount consideration, the court has to approach the issue regarding the validity and enforcement of a foreign decree or order carefully - Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the . welfare of the minor is not enough for the Indian courts to shut out .an independent consideration of the matter ...:. Objectivity and not abject surrender is the mantra in such cases - That would not, however, mean that the order passed. by a foreign court is not even a factor 'to be kept in view - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - s.13.Doctrines/Principles: Principle Of comity of courts - Held: The principle of 'comity of courts' ensures that foreign judgements and orders are unconditionally conclusive of the matter in controversy- This is all the more so where the courts in India is dealing with matters concerning the interest and welfare of minors including their custody- Interest and welfare of the minor being paramount, a competent court in India is entitled and indeed duty bound to examine the matter independently, taking the foreign judgement, if any, only as an input for its final adjudication - In the instant case, the respondent-father's case that the minor was removed from the jurisdiction of the American Courts in contravention of the orders passed by ,them, was not factually correct - There were no proceedings between the parties in any Court in America before they came to India with the minor - Such proceedings were instituted by the respondent only after he had agreed to leave the appellant and the minor behind in India, for the former to explore career options and the latter to get admitted to a school - The charge of abduction contrary to a valid order granting custody was, therefore, untenable - Moreover, the minor has been living in India and pursuing his studies in a reputed school in Delhi for nearly three years- He appeared to be happy with his studies and school and did not evince any interest in returning to his school in America - Dismissal of the application for custody in disregard of the attendant circumstances was not a proper exercise of discretion by the High Court - Interest of the minor shall be better served if he continued in the custody of his mother - High Court was not right in declining exercise of jurisdiction on the principle of comity of Courts - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - s.13.Child welfare: Visitation rights to non-custodial parent - Held: An interim order of custody in favour of the parent should not insulate the minor from the parental touch and influence of the other parent which is so very important for the healthy growth of the minor and the development of his personality - In the instant case, the minor seemed to have been thoroughly antagonized against the respondent-father - For 11 years old boy, a deep rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father - This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents is not correct - It is important that the minor has his father's care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his fife - Role of the father in his upbringing and grooming to face the realities of fife cannot be undermined - It is in that view important for the child's healthy growth that the father is granted visitation rights that will enable the two to stay in touch and share moments of joy, learning and happiness with each other- Trial Court shall pass necessary orders in this regard without delay and without permitting any dilatory tactics in the matter.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Petition for quashing the FIR registered against respondent-husband and three others for offences punishable u/s.498A, 406 read with s.34 /PC- High Court quashing the the against in-laws on the ground that the appellant- complainant was a citizen of USA and had all along lived in USA with her son and husband, away from her in laws - Held: No reason to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A, 406 r.w. s.34.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 395
Petitioner	Ruchi Majoo
Respondent	Sanjeev Majoo
SCR	[2011] 7 S.C.R. 674
Judgement Date	2011-05-13
Case Number	4435

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo

Please Log-in to view this content

Sheila B. Das Vs. P.r. Sugasree

Dhanwanti Joshi Vs. Madhav Unde

Sheoli Hati Vs. Somnath Das

Aman Lohia Vs. Kiran Lohia

Abc Vs. The State (nct of Delhi)

SANJEEV MAJOO v. RUCHI MAJOO [ CMM 448/2009 INDLHC 1299 (8 March 2010)]

Apsrtc and Ors. Vs. Sri A. Sanjeev Reddy

Athar Hussain Vs. Syed Siraj Ahmed & Ors.

Asst. Commnr. of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.

Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo

Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sheila B. Das Vs. P.r. Sugasree

Dhanwanti Joshi Vs. Madhav Unde

Sheoli Hati Vs. Somnath Das

Aman Lohia Vs. Kiran Lohia

Abc Vs. The State (nct of Delhi)

SANJEEV MAJOO v. RUCHI MAJOO [ CMM 448/2009 INDLHC 1299 (8 March 2010)]

Apsrtc and Ors. Vs. Sri A. Sanjeev Reddy

Athar Hussain Vs. Syed Siraj Ahmed & Ors.

Asst. Commnr. of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.

Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo