Gujarat HC upholds the Capability and Competency of Foreign Courts, Says they are capable of fair adjudication as any domestic court, as Ordered in Habeas Corpus Case

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Follow us

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner (Father cum Husband) filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the Respondent (Mother cum Wife) to produce his minor child and handover the custody of the said minor to him. The Petitioner is the natural father and guardian of the minor child, and that his wife and he are both medical practitioners having married in 2002. In 2006, a daughter was born at Gandhinagar and, thereafter, the family moved to Australia in February 2007. In 2011, the Son (The corpus) was born in Australia. In 2018, the Mother visited India along with both children and were scheduled to return to Australia in 2019 to recommence their schooling, when the Petitioner contacted the Mother, she refused to return to Australia with the children and informed the petitioner that she would remain in Gandhinagar and at that time, the petitioner has asked his wife (Mother) to return the children, but she refused to do so. Thereafter, he came to India and tried to talk with his wife, but she refused to speak with him and they did not allow to meet with the children. The Petitioner contended that he approached the Federal Circuit Court of Australia under the Family Law Act, 1975 in 2019 seeking “sole parental responsibility” for the children, that he was able to secure his Daughter’s return to Australia by negotiation with his wife, however, she refused to return the Corpus (Son) to the petitioner. It is further contended by the petitioner that the corpus wishes to join him. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner preferred the petition.

Arguments before the Court

The petition was resisted by Respondent (Wife cum Mother) denying all the facts of the petition stating mainly, that she is a natural guardian and biological mother of the corpus and has also stated that the custody of the minor child is with his own mother does not amount to illegal custody or illegal confinement and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. Further, it was stated that to allow the minor child with the mother is always desirable in the larger welfare of the child himself. To add on she contended that in the said facts of the case, there is a high risk of the child being abused by the father and domestic violence upon the child more particularly in Australia. On the contrary, the Petitioner (Husband cum Father) denied all the allegations. However, in the course of replying the Wife, has willingly assured that the family may reunite in the month of April 2020 for purpose of Education of Children and to not jeopardize her career as Medical Practitioner being on numerous leaves.

Decision of the Court

The High Court finally observed that the Son, until he went on the holiday, had no real first-hand experience of India and very limited exposure to any of the Indian languages. The Respondent had removed the child from his Australian school education and enrolled him unilaterally in the Indian education system, and has now, by reason of his sister’s return to Australia, this severs the important sibling relationship and also the father-son relationship. On balance it is in the son’s best interest, that he should live with his father and that there should then be consequential orders requiring the mother, as soon as possible, to return him to the Commonwealth of Australia. That “foreign court is as capable of making a prima facie fair adjudication as any domestic court and there is no reason to undermine its competence or capability.”

[googlepdf url=”https://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Gujarat-HC-upholds-the-Capability-and-Competency-of-Foreign-Courts.-Says-they-are-capable-of-fair-adjudication-as-any-domestic-court-as-Ordered-in-Habeas-Corpus-Ca.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -