| |||||||||||||||
The apex court's verdict puts paid to the efforts of Vijayshree who fled to India with Adithya soon after the US court order in 2007 for joint custody of the child in the divorce dispute. For months, she kept shifting places to dodge the police.
The SC directed the mother to go back to US, submit herself to the local court's jurisdiction and, if she so wishes, initiate proceedings seeking changes in the order asking her to share Adithya's custody with Ravi Chandran.
While the case spotlighted the emotional trauma that ugly divorces and separations inflict on children, the judgment of the Bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee, R M Lodha and B S Chauhan is significant in that it rejected the mother's argument that Indian courts were not obligated to enforce orders of American courts that were inconsistent with local laws.
This judgment is pathbreaking also in the sense that it comes despite an ugly incident three years ago when a US family court had refused to accede to an order of the Supreme Court of India for production of two minors, the grandchildren of the son of former actor-politician N T Rama Rao.
Vijayshree's allegation through senior advocate T L V Iyer that the father used to ill-treat the child, hamper his education and abuse him were termed as "hollow" by the Bench which found that all custody orders by US courts were granted on consent of both parties -- the father and mother.
What also went against the mother was the manner in which she changed her place of stay frequently to avoid detection by police after the SC issued notice to the states on a habeas corpus petition filed by the father. Finally, it had to seek the help of CBI to trace her and the child.
Agreeing with Ravi Chandran's counsel Pinky Anand, the Bench asked her to comply with the US court order of June 18, 2007, granting joint custody of the child to the estranged couple, but directed the father to move the courts there to suspend the arrest warrants issued against her.
The court also asked the father to bear the travel expenses of the mother and child to US and pay for their stay there till further orders of the US family court. "The father of the child will not pursue any criminal charge for violation of orders of US court passed on mutual consent," the Bench said.
After passing the order, Justice Lodha, writing the judgment for the Bench, warned that if the mother failed to take the child on her own to US within 15 days, the child's custody would be restored to the father along with the minor's passport to be taken to US, where local courts would initiate further proceedings.
