New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custodyof a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examinethe crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonialdisputes if the couple is foreign citizens.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal andDeepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child andposted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a DelhiHigh Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was UScitizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in thatcountry's court. The high court had passed the order while settingaside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the helpof the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India,following which the woman moved the apex court. (Custody battle: A child's wait for justice)
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising,on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter forearly hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significanceinvolving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonialdisputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking lawofficer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear inprivate disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Benchthat Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment ofwife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointedout that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives tocome to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were notavailable in other countries. The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custodyof a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examinethe crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonialdisputes if the couple is foreign citizens.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal andDeepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child andposted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a DelhiHigh Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was UScitizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in thatcountry's court. The high court had passed the order while settingaside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the helpof the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India,following which the woman moved the apex court.
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising,on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter forearly hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significanceinvolving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonialdisputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking lawofficer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear inprivate disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Benchthat Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment ofwife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointedout that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives tocome to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were notavailable in other countries.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal andDeepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child andposted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a DelhiHigh Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was UScitizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in thatcountry's court. The high court had passed the order while settingaside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the helpof the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India,following which the woman moved the apex court. (Custody battle: A child's wait for justice)
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising,on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter forearly hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significanceinvolving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonialdisputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking lawofficer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear inprivate disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Benchthat Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment ofwife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointedout that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives tocome to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were notavailable in other countries. The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Interpol from taking custodyof a minor boy from his NRI mother's possession and decided to examinethe crucial question whether Indian courts can entertain matrimonialdisputes if the couple is foreign citizens.
A Bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices J M Panchal andDeepak Verma directed "status quo" on the custody of the child andposted the matter for further hearing to April 1.
The apex court passed the interim order on an SLP filed by Ruchi Majoo, a dentist and an American now domiciled in Delhi.
Ruchi had filed the SLP through counsel Ashish Bhan against a DelhiHigh Court order, which had held that since the divorced couple was UScitizens, the custodial battle for the child should be fought in thatcountry's court. The high court had passed the order while settingaside the district's order granting custodial rights to the mother.
However, Ruchi's husband, armed with a US court order, sought the helpof the Interpol to take custody of the child and came to India,following which the woman moved the apex court.
In an unusual appearance, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising,on behalf of Ruchi urged, the apex court to take up the matter forearly hearing as according to her the issue "was of great significanceinvolving jurisdictional powers of Indian courts" over such matrimonialdisputes involving people of Indian origin.
Normally, government counsel, more so those holding high ranking lawofficer posts like Additional Solicitor Generals, do not appear inprivate disputes except without the permission of the Attorney General.
Jaising complained the Interpol was attempting to take away the child from the mother's custody and sought a restrain on it.
However, the husband's senior counsel Pallav Sisodia told the Benchthat Ruchi had deliberately foisted false cases of 498A (harassment ofwife by husband/relatives) against Sanjeev to harass him. He pointedout that there is a growing tendency among such estranged NRI wives tocome to India and file false 498A cases as such provisions were notavailable in other countries.
