Source: http://bareactslive.com/LCR/LC218.HTM
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:10:25+00:00

Document:
by Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, Chairman, Law Commission of India, on 5th day of August, 2009.
I am forwarding herewith the 218th Report of the Law Commission of India on the above subject.
Statistics show that the number of divorce cases and custody disputes has increased ever since the advent of globalization and technological development leading to a very busy life-style and work culture. The international parental child abduction/child removal finds its root here.
International parental child abduction or removal can be defined as the removal of a child by one parent from one country to another without the approval of the other parent. Child removal, in this context, encompasses an interference with the parental rights or right to contact with the removed child. These acts by a parent when brought before a court of law have in the past created considerable amount of confusion specifically in the area of competence of courts with regard to jurisdictional aspects.
The international community acted to solve this crisis by adopting on October 25, 1980 an International Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which entered into force on December 1, 1983.
Many States of the world (81) have become signatory to this Convention. Some States like Australia have brought about amendments in their family law legislations to make the Hague Convention operative in their nation. India, however, is not a signatory to this Convention. The time has come for some international perspective in this regard. The fact of India not being a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction may have a negative influence on a foreign judge who is deciding on the custody of a child. Without the guarantee afforded by the Hague Convention to the effect that the child will be swiftly returned to the country of origin, the foreign judge may be reluctant to give permission for the child to travel to India. As a logical upshot, India should become a signatory to the Hague Convention and this will, in turn, bring the prospect of achieving the return to India of children who have their homes in India.
The Commission is of the view that India should keep pace and change according to the changing needs of the society. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the Government may consider that India should become a signatory to the Hague Convention which will in turn bring the prospects of achieving the return to India of children who have their homes in India.
1. Dr. Justice AR. Lakshamanan, International Child Abduction - Parental Removal, (2008) 48 IJIL 427.
1. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), Article 1.
2. Dr. Justice AR. Lakshamanan, International Child Abduction - Penal Removal, (2008) 45 IJIL 427.
2.2 In Cooper and Casey,2 it was held that a child can have only one place of habitual residence which should be determined by focusing on the child's past experience and not on its or its parents' intentions.
1. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), Article 4.
2. (1995) 18 Fam LR 433.
3. Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan Child Abduction - Parental Removal, (2008) 48 IJIL 427.
1. Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan Child Abduction - Parental Removal, (2008) 48 IJIL 427.
= (i) Applicant not exercising custodial rights � The Court can refuse to order the return of the child if the applicant was not actually exercising rights of custody when the child was removed or first retained.
= (ii) Consent to or subsequent acquiescence � The order for the return of the child can be refused if the applicant had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention. This consent or acquiescence may be expressed or inferred from conduct in circumstances in which different conduct might be expected if there was no consent or acquiescence.
= (iii) Risk to the child � The Court may refuse a return if there is a grave risk that the return of the child to the country in which it habitually resided immediately before the removal or retention would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
= (iv) Child's objection � The Court may refuse to order return if a child, who has obtained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of the child's views, objects to the return. It should be an emphatic objection and not a mere preference to remain where it is.
= (v) Protection of rights and freedoms � The Court may refuse to order return if it would be contrary to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
3. JT 2000 (7) SC 450 (453).
2.8 A case law study will depict a clear picture in this regard. The Supreme Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, AIR 1984 SC 1224, and Mrs.Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, AIR 1987 SC 3, exercised summary jurisdiction in returning the minor children to the country of their parent. In a later case of Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112, the Supreme Court observed that the order of the foreign court will only be one of the facts which must be taken into consideration while dealing with child custody matters and India being a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, the law is that the Court within whose jurisdiction the child is removed will consider the question on merits bearing the welfare of the child as of paramount importance. It was in this case the Supreme Court changed the earlier view and did not exercise summary jurisdiction in returning children to its parent and observed that the welfare and best interest of the child or children should be of paramount consideration. This observation by the Supreme Court was followed in a later decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma, JT 2000 (2) SC 258. In 2004, the Supreme Court, in the case of Sahiba Ali v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (1) HLR 212, declined to grant the custody of her children to the mother but at the same time issued directions for visitation rights in the interest and welfare of the minor children. In another case of Kumar V. Jahgirdar v. Chethana Ramatheertha, 2004 (1) HLR 468, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that a female child of growing age needs company more of her mother compared to the father and remarriage of the mother is not a disqualification in safeguarding interest of the child. Further, in a recent case of Paul Mohinder Gahun v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2005 (1) HLR 428, the Delhi High Court refused to grant custody of the child to the father and observed that the question of conflict of laws and jurisdictions should take a back seat in preference to what lies in the interest of the minor.
5. Mandy Jane Collins v. James Michael Collins, (2006) 2 HLR 446.
2.11 Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that a court can pass orders and make such provisions in the decree in any proceedings under the Act with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children upon an application for that purpose as expeditiously as possible.
2.12 Section 4(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 defines "minor" to mean "a person who has not reached the age 18 years". And, under the Act, the custody of a child is given to any person, be it the child's natural parents or guardian (appointed by the court) with the prime importance given to the welfare of the child. A landmark case that decided the same was Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228.
"32. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the Hague Convention of 1980 on "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". As of today, about 45 countries are parties to this Convention. India is not yet a signatory. Under the Convention, any child below 16 years who had been "wrongfully" removed or retained in another contracting State, could be returned back to the country from which the child had been removed, by application to a central authority. Under Article 16 of the Convention, if in the process, the issue goes before a court, the Convention prohibits the court from going into the merits of the welfare of the child. Article 12 requires the child to be sent back, but if a period of more than one year has lapsed from the date of removal to the date of commencement of the proceedings before the court, the child would still be returned unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment. Article 12 is subject to Article 13 and a return could be refused if it would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable position or if the child is quite mature and objects to its return. In England, these aspects are covered by the Child Abduction and Custody Act, 1985.
33. So far as non-Convention countries are concerned, or where the removal related to a period before adopting the Convention, the law is that the court in the country to which the child is removed will consider the question on merits bearing the welfare of the child as of paramount importance and consider the order of the foreign court as only a factor to be taken into consideration as stated in McKee v. McKee unless the Court thinks it fit to exercise summary jurisdiction in the interests of the child and its prompt return is for its welfare, as explained in L., Re. As recently as 1996-1997, it has been held in P (A minor) (Child Abduction: Non-Convention Country), Re: by Ward, L.J. [1996 Current Law Year Book, pp. 165-166] that in deciding whether to order the return of a child who has been abducted from his or her country of habitual residence - which was not a party to the Hague Convention, 1980, - the courts' overriding consideration must be the child's welfare. There is no need for the Judge to attempt to apply the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention by ordering the child's return unless a grave risk of harm was established. See also A (A minor) (Abduction: Non-Convention Country) [Re, The Times 3-7-97 by Ward, L.J. (CA) (quoted in Current Law, August 1997, p. 13]. This answers the contention relating to removal of the child from USA."
We believe that India should keep pace and change according to the changing needs of the society. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the Government may consider that India should become a signatory to the Hague Convention which will in turn bring the prospects of achieving the return to India of children who have their homes in India.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.