Mrs. Kanika Goel vs The State Of Delhi Thru Sho

2. The respondent No.2 asserted that he was born in India but presently is a citizen of USA since 2005. He is working as the CEO of a Company called ‘Get Set Learning’. The appellant is   his   wife   and   mother   of   the   minor   child   M.   She   is   a   US Permanent Resident and a “Green Card” holder and has also applied   for   US   citizenship   on   2nd  December,   2016.   At   the relevant time, she was a certified teacher in the State of Illinois and was employed as a Special Education Classroom Assistant in   Chicago   Public   Schools.   The   respondent   No.2   and   the appellant   got   married   on   31st  December,   2010   as   per   Sikh rites, i.e. Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu Vedic rites in New 3 Delhi.  It was clearly understood between both the parties that the   appellant,   after   marriage,   would   reside   with   respondent No.2 in the USA. Eventually, the appellant travelled to the USA on a Fiance Visa and got married to respondent No.2 again on 19th  March, 2011 at Cook County Court in Chicago, Illinois. Before   the   marriage,   the   parties   entered   into   a   Pre­Nuptial Agreement dated 20th October, 2010 enforceable in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, USA. The appellant then took employment as a teacher in Chicago Public School and also   secured   a   US   Permanent   Citizen   Green   Card.   The appellant   became   pregnant   and   gave   birth   to   M   on   15 th February, 2014 in USA. M is thus a natural born US citizen and was domiciled in the State of Illinois, USA from her birth till   she   was   clandestinely   removed   by   the   appellant   in December 2016 under the guise of undertaking a short trip to New Delhi to meet the appellant’s parents.

3. The appellant was scheduled to return to Chicago on 7 th January, 2017 but she went missing and filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the 4 1955   Act”)   being   H.M.A.   Case   No.27   of   2017   seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, along with an application under Section 26 of the 1955 Act on 7 th  January, 2017 seeking a restraint order against respondent No.2 from taking M away from the jurisdiction of Indian Courts. A notice was issued thereon to respondent No.2, made returnable on 11th January, 2017.

4. The   respondent   No.2,   however,   filed   an   emergency petition   for   temporary   sole   allocation   of   parental responsibilities   and   parenting   time   in   his   favour   or   in   the alternative, an emergency order of protection for possession of his   minor   daughter   M,   before   the   Circuit   Court   of   Cook County, Illinois on 9th  January, 2017. A notice of emergency motion was served on the appellant by e­mail, informing her of the proposed hearing on 13th January, 2017.

5. In the meantime, on 11th January, 2017 the Family Court at   New   Delhi   issued   a   fresh   notice   to   respondent   No.2   and 5 passed   an   ex­parte   order   on   the   application   filed   by   the appellant   under   Section  151 of   the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure, restraining   respondent   No.2   from   removing   the   minor   child from the jurisdiction of that Court until further orders.

6. The respondent No.2 on the other hand, caused to file a missing   person   complaint   on   13 th  January,   2017   before   the SHO,   Vasant   Kunj   (South),   P.S.   New   Delhi,   which   was acknowledged   by   the   Police   Station   on   14 th  January,   2017. Besides   the   said   complaint,   respondent   No.2   moved   the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA on 13 th  January, 2017   when   an   ex­parte   order   was   passed   for   interim   sole custody of the minor child.  The said order reads thus:

8. This   writ   petition   was   contested   by   the   appellant.   The High   Court   issued   interim   orders   including   regarding   giving access of the minor child to respondent No.2 in the presence of 7 the   appellant   and   her   parents.   Finally,   all   the   contentious issues between the parties were answered by the High Court by a speaking judgment and order dated 16 th November, 2017, in favour of respondent No.2, after recording a finding that the paramount interest of the minor child was to return to USA, so that she could be in her natural environment. To facilitate the parties   to   have   a  working  arrangement  and  to  minimize  the inconvenience,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court  issued directions in the following terms:

6.  The petitioner seeks a short adjournment to produce the relevant documents in that regard before this Court.

10.  The  petitioner   has  assured   that   the  child  shall  not   be taken   away   unauthorisedly   and   shall   be   duly   returned   to respondent no.2 at the end of the meeting on each date.

11.  List on 06.12.2017 for further directions. On the next date,   the   child   may   be   brought   to   the   Court   so   that   the petitioner and his parents are able to meet the child in the Children’s Room at the Mediation Centre between 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 14

2. The petitioner has stated that he has already deposited US$25,000 into his attorney’s escrow account. The affidavit of Molshree A., Sharma affirms that the said escrow account may   be   operated   by   respondent   No.2/   Kanika   Goel   in   the event of failure of the petitioner/ Karan Goel in meeting his obligations as per his undertaking given to this Court.

7. The   meeting   between   the  petitioner   and   his   parents, on the one hand, and the child, on the other hand, shall be undertaken   as   per   the   arrangement   worked   out   by   us earlier, i.e. two hours every working day, and three hours at the weekends, as mutually agreed between the parties.

Let the matter be listed on 19.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. for final disposal.” These are the relevant interim orders, which were to operate until the final disposal of the appeals. On 18th  May, 2018, a grievance was made before this Court about non­cooperation by the appellant, which has been recorded as under: 18

24. In the present case, the minor child M is a US citizen by birth. She has grown up in her native country for over three years before she was brought to New Delhi by her biological mother (appellant) in December 2016. She had joined a pre­ school in the USA. She had healthy bonding with her father (respondent   No.2).   Her   paternal   grand­parents   used   to   visit her in the USA at some intervals. She was under the care of a Nanny   during   the   day   time,   as   her   parents   were   working. Indeed,   the   work   place   of   her   father   is   near   the   home.   The biological father  (respondent No.2) of the minor  child M has acquired US citizenship. Both father and mother of the minor child M were of Indian origin but domiciled in the USA after marriage.  The  mother  (appellant)  is a permanent  resident of 49 the   USA­Green   Card   holder   and   has   also   applied   for   US citizenship. In her affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court dated 30th  November, 2017, she admits that her legal status was complicated as she has ceased to be an Indian citizen and her status of citizenship of the USA is in limbo.

8. The   petition   stands   disposed   of   in   the   aforesaid terms.”

For that, Respondent 2 Anand Raghavan will bear the costs of litigation and expenses to be incurred by the appellant. If the appellant is required to appear in the said proceeding in person   and   for   which   she   is   required   to   visit   the   UK, Respondent   2   Anand   Raghavan   will   bear   the   air   fares   or purchase the tickets for the travel of appellant and Nethra to the   UK   and   including   for   their   return   journey   to   India   as may be required. In addition, Respondent 2 Anand Raghavan will make all arrangements for  the comfortable stay  of the appellant   and   her   companions   at   an   independent   place   of her choice at reasonable costs. In the event, the appellant is required to appear in the proceedings before the High Court of   Justice   in   the   UK,   Respondent   2   shall   not   initiate   any coercive   process   against   her   which   may   result   in   penal consequences for the appellant and if any such proceeding is already   pending,   he   must   take   steps   to   first   withdraw   the same   and/or   undertake   before   the   court   concerned   not   to pursue   it   any   further.   That   will   be   condition   precedent   to 42 pave   way   for   the   appellant   to   appear   before   the   court concerned in the UK.”

28. A  fortiori, dependant on the outcome of the proceedings, before the Family Court at New Delhi, the appellant may then be legally obliged to participate in the proceedings before the US   Court   and   must   take   all   measures   to   effectively   defend herself   in   the   said   proceedings  by   engaging   solicitors   of   her choice   in   the   USA   to   espouse   her   cause   before   the   Circuit Court   of   Cook   County,   Illinois,   USA.   In   that   event,   the respondent No.2 shall bear the cost of litigation and expenses to   be   incurred   by   the   appellant   to   pursue   the   proceedings before   the   Courts   in   the   native   country.   In   addition,   the respondent No.2 will bear the air fares or purchase the tickets 54 for the travel of the appellant and the minor child M to the USA and including their return journey for India, as may be required.   The   respondent   No.2   shall   also   make   all   suitable arrangements for the comfortable stay of the appellant and her companions   at   an   independent   place   of   her   choice,   at   a reasonable   cost.   Further,   the   respondent   No.2   shall   not initiate any coercive/penal action against the appellant and if any   such   proceeding   initiated   by   him   in   that   regard   is pending, the same shall be withdrawn and not pursued before the   concerned   Court  any  further. That   will  be  the   condition precedent   to   facilitate   the   appellant   to   appear   before   the Courts in the USA to effectively defend herself on all matters relating to the matrimonial dispute and including custody and guardianship of the minor child.

29. The   appellant   and   respondent   No.2   must   ensure   early disposal of the proceedings for grant of custody of the minor girl child to the appellant, instituted and pending before the Family   Court   at   Patiala   House,   New   Delhi.   All   contentions available to the parties in that regard will have to be answered 55 by the Family Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

30. We,   accordingly, set aside the  impugned  judgment  and orders of the High Court and dispose of the writ petition in the aforementioned terms. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

July 20, 2018.