Source: https://mynation.net/docs/4435-2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:35:55+00:00

Document:
Conflict of laws and jurisdictions in the realm of private international law is a phenomenon that has assumed greater dimensions with the spread of Indian diasporas across the globe. A large number of our young and enterprising countrymen are today looking for opportunities abroad. While intellectual content and technical skills of these youngster find them lucrative jobs in distant lands, complete assimilation with the culture, the ways of life and the social values prevalent in such countries do not come easy. The result is that in very many cases incompatibility of temperament apart, diversity of backgrounds and inability to accept the changed lifestyle often lead to matrimonial discord that inevitably forces one or the other party to seek redress within the legal system of the country which they have adopted in pursuit of their dreams. Experience has also shown that in a large number of cases one of the parties may return to the country of his or her origin for family support, shelter and stability. Unresolved disputes in such situations lead to legal proceedings in the country of origin as well as in the adoptive country. Once that happens issues touching the jurisdiction of the courts examining the same as also comity of nations are thrown up for adjudication.
and Wards Act granting interim custody of the minor to her.
– a condition precedent for the Delhi Court to exercise jurisdiction.
Three questions fall for determination in the above backdrop.
exercise its powers under the Act mentioned above.
being, therefore some interim arrangement could be worked out.
Court and her appointment as sole guardian of the minor.
demand and sexual or behavioural perversity alleged against him.
pretext that she did not stay at 73 Anand Lok, New Delhi.
without informing the respondent in advance.
custody of the minor shall have to be answered.
inhere as quality, to be vested as a right. (State ex rel. Bowden v.
1521, this Court was dealing with a case under Section 488 Cr.P.C.
rather than merely for some special or limited purpose.
carries on business in the particular place.
person seeks to be registered as an elector in a particular constituency.
Reference may be made to Bhagyalakshmi and Anr. v. K.N.
put Kush in an Indo-American school or equivalent at Delhi this year.
would like to bear completely.
appellant to stay back in India and to explore career options here.
which are self-explanatory as to the context in which they are sent.
petition under Article 227 filed before this Court.
argued is that the letter was written under duress and coercion.
for home phone, please see below our updated contact information.
stay in Delhi alongwith Kush for now.
for that purpose. The e-mail is to the following effect.
appellant winding up her affairs in America.
amount. Also this repossession will damage your credit history.
mentioned. Let me know how you want to proceed.
seems like a better option.
the decision was taken jointly by both the parents.
changed his mind and started accusing the appellant of abduction.
question no.1 in the negative.
consideration that would go into the making of a final decision.
settled authoritatively in an appropriate case.
while deciding about the custody and the welfare of the child.
the children were in illegal custody of Sarita Sharma their mother.
the custody of the father who was addicted to excessive alcohol.
the Guardians and Wards Act.
In V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India and Ors.
petition filed directly before it under Article 32 of the Constitution.
what has been stated in the decisions already referred to by us.
contact evolved by this Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v.
proceedings launched under the Guardian & Wards Act.
alleged detenue is within its territorial jurisdiction.
“We may here state that this Court in Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M.
for presentation before the Court competent to entertain the same.
jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.
would benefit from the same.
also for the above reasons answered in the negative.
406 of the IPC or provisions like the Prohibition of Dowry Act 1961.
by its order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed in Crl. M.C.
to that controversy, and allay the apprehension of the respondent.
in exercising his visitation rights.
responsible for his grandparent’s skin problems and other worries.
permitting any dilatory tactics in the matter.
alleged locker was taken by him were also not given in the FIR.
allegations made by the appellant in the FIR.
passed by the High Court, that pursuit was soon given up by him.
orders passed by the High Court in Crl. M.C. No.3329 of 2009.
disposed of on the merits as expeditiously as possible.
father as indicated in body of the order.
aspect shall be taken to have been finally decided by this Court.
No.10362 of 2010) is dismissed.
Date : 13/05/2011 These Petitions were called on for judgment today.
For Appellant (s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Kumar, Adv.
The appeal is allowed in terms of signed judgment.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of signed judgment.
← Will your Nominee get the money on your death?

References: v.

 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.