V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

also prima facie does not seem to have any merit since A despite the fact that the respondent No. 6 has been staying in India for more than two years, she has not pursued any legal proceeding for the sole custody of the minor or for declaration that the orders passed by the American courts concerning the custody of minor child are 8 null and void and without jurisdiction. Rather it transpires from the counter affidavit that initially respondent No. 6 initiated the proceedings under Guardianship and Wards Act but later on withdrew the same. The facts and circumstances leave no manner of doubt that merely because the child has been brought to India by c respondent No. 6, the custody issue concerning the minor child does not deserve to be gone into by the courts in India and it would be in accord with principles of comity as well as on facts to return the child back to the United States of America from where he has been removed and · D enable the parties to establish the case before the courts in the native State of the child, i.e. United States of America for modification of the existing custody orders. There is nothing on record which may even remotely suggest that it would be harmful for the child to be returned to his native country.[Para 21] [990-8-E] E

1.5. It is also true that one of the factors to be kept in . mind in exercise of summary jurisdiction in the interest of child is that application for custody/return of the child is made promptly and quickly after the child has been removed. This is so because any delay may result in child F developing roots in the country to which he has been removed. From the counter affidavitfiled by respondent No. 6, it is apparent that in last two years the child did not have education at one place. He has moved from one school to another. Respondent No. 6 and the child have G been moving from one State to another. The parents of respondent No. 6 have filed an affidavit before this Court denying any knowledge or awareness of the whereabouts of respondent No. 6 and the minor child ever since they left in September, 2007. In these circumstances, there has H 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A been no occasion for the child, developing roots in this country. Moreover, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner promptly and without any delay, but since respondent No. 6 has been moving from one State to another and her whereabouts were not known, the notice could not be served and child could not be produced for more than two years. [Para 22] [990-F-H; 991- A-C] B

1.6. It is ordered that respondent No. 6 shall act as per the consent order dated June 18, 2007 passed by the c Family Court of the State of New York till such time any further order is passed on the petition that may be moved by the parties henceforth and, accordingly, she will take the child of her own to the United States of America within fifteen days from the date of the judgment and report to , that court. The petitioner shall bear all the traveling D expenses and make arrangements for their residence in the United States of America till further orders are passe~ by the competent court. The petitioner shall request the authorities that the warrants against respondent No. 6 be dropped. He shall not file or pursue any criminal charges for violation by respondent No. 6 of the consent order in the United States of America. Respondent No. 6 shall furnish her address and contact number in India to the CBI authorities and also inform them in advance the date and flight details of her departure along with the child for United States of America.In the event of respondent No. 6 F not taking the child to United States of America within the stipulated time, the child with his passport shall be restored to the custody of the petitioner to be taken to United States of America. The child will be a ward of the concerned court that passed the consent order dated G June 18, 2007. It will be open to respondent No. 6 to move that court for a review of the custody of the child, if so, advised. [Para 26] (992-D-G; 993-A-B] E