Sukriti Arora v. State of Haryana & Ors.

ordered by the High Court of Justice Family Division that respondent No. 4 must not remove or in any way dispose of or deal with the monies deposited in the Banks.. The petitioner, thereafter, on 17.02.2010 made an application through her Solicitor for issuance of a writ of sequestration and on 18.02.2010 vide order (Annexure P-9), leave -9- Criminal Writ Petition No.712 of 2010. was granted to issue the Writ of Sequestration. It has been further mentioned in the petition that respondent No. 4 had been, time and again, made aware of all the proceedings initiated against him in United Kingdom by the petitioner's solicitor through fax, e-mail etc. It has been further stated in the petition that respondent No.4, being well aware of the proceedings in United Kingdom, is deliberately avoiding them and staying in India in order to escape the arms of justice. On 23.4.2010, while issuing notice to the Advocate General, Haryana, for 6.5.2010, ordered that, in the meantime, respondent No.4 would not leave the country without permission of the Court and would bring respondent No.7 Vaishali Arora in Court on the date fixed i.e 6.5.2010. Necessary intimation in this regard was also ordered to be sent to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police. On 6.5.2010, when no one attended the Court on behalf of respondent No.4, an intimation was ordered to be sent to the Ministry of External Affairs to flash a message to the concerned quarters in order to prevent disappearance of respondent No.4 from India. Further, fresh intimation was ordered to be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned. It was also ordered that the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, under the jurisdiction of which respondent No.4 was residing, would attend the Court on 12.5.2010 along with the report regarding the whereabouts of respondent No.4. On -10- Criminal Writ Petition No.712 of 2010.

12.5.2010, respondent No.4 appeared in Court along with the child i.e Vaishali Arora. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4 sought time to file reply and the matter was adjourned to 21.5.2010, on which date arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. In the reply filed to this petition by respondent No.4, he, besides stating that the petitioner has absolutely no love and affection for her daughter Vaishali Arora, inter alia, stated that Vaishali Arora is very happy living in India with her father. Respondent No.4 further stated that Vaishli Arora is currently studying in one of the best schools at Faridabad i.e Manav Rachna International School and never expressed any desire to be with her mother in England. After hearing Mr. Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State-respondent and Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4, I am of the considered opinion that the the petitioner is entitled to have the custody of Vaishali Arora (respondent No.7). The paramount consideration with regard to the custody of the minor daughter is her welfare and it is in the best interest of the child that her custody is provided to her mother. As noticed above, on 17.11.2009, the Reading Court Country in United Kingdom passed the order Annexure P-6 directing the petitioner and respondent No.4 to deposit with the Court the -11- Criminal Writ Petition No.712 of 2010. passports and travel documents of the children, which were not to be released without further orders of the Court. The order dated

17.11.2009 (Annexure P-6) was passed by the Reading Country Court upon hearing the Solicitors for the petitioner and respondent No.4. However, respondent No.4, instead of complying with the order (Annexure P-6), brought Vaishali Arora (respondent No.7) to India leaving the petitioner in lurch. Vaishali Arora, who was born on 14.1.2002, has attained British Citizenship as per Certificate of Registration as a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act, 1981, dated 10.3.2010 (Annexure P-3). In the case of V.Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 174, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, where the wife had brought the child to India, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that merely because the child had been brought to India, the custody issue concerning the minor child did 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 from where he had been removed, and enable the parties to establish their case before the Courts in the native State of the Child for modification of existing custody orders. In view of the above, the petitioner is legally entitled to be handed over the custody of the minor girl Vaishali Arora. Practically speaking, minor girls need their mother -12- Criminal Writ Petition No.712 of 2010. to understand girly things. It is well-said that a mother always has to think twice, once for herself and once for her child. The tie which links mother and child is of such pure and immaculate strength as to never weaken. Home for a little girl is that where her mother lives. A mother's love for her child is like nothing else in the world. For a little girl, mother is always there to support her whenever she needs her. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition succeeds. The same is allowed. Jitender Arora (respondent No.4) is directed to hand over custody of Vaishali Arora (respondent No.7) to her mother Sukriti Arora (petitioner). Jitender Arora (respondent No.4), for handing over custody of Vaishali Arora and her (Vaishali Arora's) passport to Sukriti Arora, will appear on 4.6.2010 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who will ensure compliance of this order. If the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, is not available on 4.6.2010, Jitender Arora (respondent No.4) will appear before the first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, for complying with this order. Before parting with this judgment, it is made clear that in case Jitender Arora (respondent No.4) wants to take custody of Vaishali Arora (respondent No.7), he may join proceedings in this regard which were initiated at the instance of Sukriti Arora (petitioner) and are admittedly pending at -13- Criminal Writ Petition No.712 of 2010. United Kingdom. Copies of this judgment be supplied `Dasti' to the parties/their counsel against requisite fee. May 25 ,2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE