Supreme Court of India
G H JASMEET KAURversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1361
- Decided
- 12 December 2019
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Indian courts lack jurisdiction over the guardianship of the U.S. citizen children and directed the parties to return to the United States with the children, while prescribing detailed post‑return arrangements.
Summary
The petitioner, a U.S. citizen, married a U.S. citizen husband and had two children who are U.S. citizens. After a visit to India, the petitioner refused to return to the United States with the children, prompting the husband to obtain custody orders in a Connecticut Superior Court and later file a habeas corpus petition in Delhi. Indian courts, including the Family Court and the Delhi High Court, held that they lacked jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 because the children ordinarily reside in the United States, and ordered the petitioner to return to the U.S. with the children. The husband complied with the High Court’s directions, obtaining a U.S. court order that the children remain with the petitioner until further orders. Before the Supreme Court, the parties agreed to return to the U.S., and the Court issued detailed directions on passport renewal, accommodation, visitation, asset division, and financial support, while confirming the withdrawal of divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions, affirming the High Court’s jurisdictional view and the prescribed arrangements.
Issues considered
- The jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 when the child is a U.S. citizen and ordinarily resides abroad.
- Whether the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 overrides the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in matters of custody.
- The propriety of issuing a writ of habeas corpus to compel the petitioner to return to the United States with the children.
- The applicability of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in dismissing the guardianship petition.
- The appropriate arrangements for custody, visitation, and financial support given the transnational context.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 11
- Family Courts Act, 1984s. 19
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890s. 11, s. 25, s. 7, s. 9
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956s. 6
Subjects
custodyguardianshipjurisdictionGuardians and Wards ActHindu Minority and Guardianship Acthabeas corpusinternational child abductionasset divisionvisitation rightsU.S.-India family law
Judgment
1144 [2019] REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 18 S.C.R. 1144 [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A JASMEET KAUR
v.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4858-4859 of 2018)
B DECEMBER 12, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – s.9 – Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 – Custody of children – Respondent-
husband, a U.S. Citizen married the petitioner-wife in U.S. – After
C
the birth of their daughter, who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth,
petitioner-wife also obtained U.S. citizenship – After some time, both
the parties visited India – Thereafter, petitioner-wife, who was
pregnant at that time refused to return to the U.S. – Respondent-
husband instituted custody proceedings before the U.S. County Court
D – The U.S. Country Court passed an ex-parte interim order and
granted temporary custody of both children to the respondent-
husband with supervised visitation rights to the petitioner-wife –
The petitioner-wife approached the Family Court in India and sought
sole & permanent custody of both the children – The Family Court
in India held that the paramount interest of the children would lie in
E
shared parenting by the parties in the U.S. and the petitioner-wife
was not entitled to the sole custody of the children – Aggrieved, the
petitioner-wife filed appeal before the High Court in India, which
was dismissed – Thereafter, respondent-husband filed writ of Habeas
Corpus before the High Court in India to direct the petitioner-wife
F to produce the minor children – The High Court directed the
petitioner-wife to return to the U.S. along with the two minor children
– High Court further directed the respondent-husband to move the
Superior Court in U.S. to recall earlier orders of the U.S. County
Court which directed temporary physical and legal custody of the
minor children to him and directed children to remain in custody of
G
petitioner-wife when she lands in U.S. – In compliance, respondent-
husband submitted affidavit to the said effect and also obtained
order from the Superior Court as per direction of the High Court –
The Superior Court in U.S. granted custody of the children to the
petitioner-wife until further custody orders were determined by the
H Court after hearing both the parties – Pursuant thereto, High Court
1144
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1145
in India directed the petitioner-wife to return to the U.S. along with A
both the children – Petitioner-wife challenged the orders of the High
Court before the Supreme Court of India – Held: The following
directions were issued: The petitioner-wife to return to U.S. along
with two minor children – If petitioner-wife chooses not to return to
the matrimonial home, then respondent-husband to provide her
B
suitable accommodation – The petitioner-wife to provide
unsupervised access to the respondent-husband every weekend –
If petitioner-wife chooses not to jointly practice with respondent-
husband at their clinic, then parties to take steps to divide the assets
equally – The respondent-husband to get children admitted to a
reputed school in the vicinity – The respondent-husband to further C
provide U.S. $8000 per month to the petitioner-wife to meet all her
expenses – Further, after the division of assets, both the parties to
share equally the expenses towards the education and upbringing
of the children.
Disposing of the Special Leave Petitions, the Court D
HELD: The Court disposed of both the Special Leave
Petitions and passed the following directions:-
i. The parties will jointly apply to the U.S. Embassy for
renewal of the U.S. Passport of their daughter and for
issuance of an American passport for their son. E
ii. The Petitioner – wife along with the two minor
children will return to the U.S. after the issuance of
the Passports of the minor children.
If the Petitioner fails to comply with the F
aforesaid direction, the children will be handed over
to the Respondent – husband who will take them back
to the U.S.
iii. The Respondent – husband offered that upon
returning to the U.S., the Petitioner – wife may return
G
to the matrimonial home.
If the Petitioner – wife, however, chooses to
live independently, the Respondent – husband will
provide suitable accommodation to the Petitioner –
wife with all basic amenities.
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A In the alternative, the Petitioner – wife may
identify a suitable accommodation, in the same vicinity
so that the Respondent – husband has access to the
children.
iv. The Petitioner – wife undertakes to provide visitation
B and unsupervised access to the Respondent – husband
every weekend, which arrangement may be modified
by a Court of competent jurisdiction in the U.S.
v. The Respondent – husband offered that upon
returning to the U.S., the Petitioner – wife may
C continue to practice dentistry at their joint clinic.
If the Petitioner – wife is not interested to
jointly practice with the Respondent – husband at their
clinic, the parties may take steps to divide the assets
equally. The division of assets shall be completed
D within a period of 4 months.
vi. The Respondent – husband will take steps to get the
children admitted to a reputed school in the vicinity.
vii. The Respondent – husband has agreed to provide an
amount of $8000 to the Petitioner – wife to meet all
E her expenses.
The amount to be deposited in the Escrow
Account by the Respondent – husband as a security
to ensure compliance of the payment terms.
viii. After the assets are divided, both parties will share
F
equally the expenses towards the education and
upbringing of the children.
ix. The Petitioner – wife has instituted Divorce
proceedings against the Respondent – husband before
the Family Court in India. The Petitioner – wife has
G agreed to withdraw the said divorce proceedings.
[Para 7][1154-H; 1155-A-H; 1156-A-H; 1157-A]
H
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1147
CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special A
Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 4858-4859 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2018 and 21.05.2018
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 725 of 2017.
With
B
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20022 of 2019.
Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ravi Avasthi, Ms. Rytim Vohra,
Ms. Devina Malaviya, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Anil Malhotra, Ranjit
Malhotra, Viresh B. Saharya, Rajat Bhalla, Akshat Agarwal, Bharat Singh,
Ms. Diksha Rai, Dr. D.V. Rao, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the C
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present Special Leave Petitions arise out of matrimonial
D
disputes between the parties.SLP (Crl.) No. 4858-4859/2018 has been
filed by the Petitioner – wife to challenge the Orders dated 06.03.2018
and 21.05.2018 passed by the High Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition
(Crl) No. 725 of 2017 filed by the Respondent – husband, seeking issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus for production of the children, who have
been illegally abducted by the Petitioner – wife from his custody in the E
USA.
SLP (C.) No. 20022/2019 arises out of a Guardianship Petition
filed u/s. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (“GWA”) by the
Petitioner – wife praying for permanent and sole custody of the minor
daughter – Ishnoor now aged about 7 years, and minor son – Paramvir F
aged about 2 years.
Since both SLPs arise out of common facts, they are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The background facts in which the present SLPs have been
filed are briefly set out herein below: G
2.1 The Respondent – husband migrated to the U.S. with his
parents in 1994, when he was 14 years old, and has been
permanently residing there since the past over 25 years,
and has acquired U.S. citizenship. The Respondent –
husband has been practicing as a Dentist in the U.S. H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A 2.2 The Petitioner – wife moved to the U.S. in 1998, when she
was 17 years old to pursue a degree in Computer Science
from Hunter College in New York. The Petitioner met the
Respondent sometime in 2000, while she was a student.
After meeting the Respondent, she decided to do a course
in Dentistry, and subsequently qualified as a Dentist.
B
2.3 On 22.08.2006, the parties got married in New York and
obtained a certificate of registration of marriage from the
Marriage License Bureau, New York.
On 23.12.2007, the parties came to India, and
C solemnized their marriage under Sikh rites in the presence
of their families.
2.4 The parties have lived in the U.S. throughout the subsistence
of their marriage, and jointly started running a dental clinic
viz. ‘South End Dental Clinic’at Norwalk, Connecticut.
D The daughter – Ishnoor was born out of the wedlock
on 27.08.2012 and acquired U.S. citizenship by birth.
2.5 After the birth of their daughter, the Petitioner– wife applied
for citizenship, and obtained U.S. citizenship in April, 2013.
2.6 On 26.01.2016, the couple along with their daughter –
E Ishnoor and the parents of the Respondent came to New
Delhi, to attend the wedding of her brother, on a return
ticket. The Petitioner – wife was pregnant at that time.
The parties were scheduled to return to the U.S. on
06.03.2016. The Petitioner – wife however refused to return
to the U.S.along with Ishnoor.
F
While she was in India, she delivered the second child viz. Paramvir
on 15.09.2016 at New Delhi. Since both parties were U.S. citizens, the
minor son – Paramvir would be an American citizen by birth.
3. Proceedings in the U.S.
G 3.1 The husband instituted custody proceedings before the US
County Court at Stamford, Connecticut seeking custody of
the children.
3.2 The Superior Court of the State of Connecticut at Stamford/
Norwalk passed an ex-parte interim Order dated
H 17.11.2016 whereby temporary custody of both children was
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1149
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
granted to the Respondent – husband, with supervised A
visitation rights for the Petitioner – wife.
3.3 On 25.01.2017, the Superior Court passed a Final Order
directing the Petitioner – wife to return to the U.S with the
minor children, and granted sole, legal and physical custody
of both children to the husband, with supervised visitation B
rights to the Petitioner – wife.
The Superior Court ordered that when the wife
appears before the Court, she would be given an opportunity
to be heard, and to lead evidence with respect to the issue
of custody of the children, which would be dealt with fairly, C
after evidence was led by both parties.
4. Guardianship Proceedings in India
4.1 The Petitioner – wife filed a Guardianship Petition bearing
G.P. No. 64/2016 u/s. 7,9, 11 and 25 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 read with S. 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority D
and Guardianship Act, 1956 before the Family Court, Tis
Hazari, New Delhi seeking sole and permanent custody of
both the children.
4.2 The Respondent – husband filed an Application under Order
VII, Rule 11CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. E
4.3 The Family Court vide Order dated 26.12.2016 allowed
the Application, and dismissed the Guardianship Petition.
The Court held thatthe parties and their daughter – Ishnoor
were “ordinarily residing” in the U.S. at the time of filing
the Guardianship Petition, and their son – Paramvir was a
F
U.S. citizen by birth, consequently, they would be governed
by the laws of the U.S.
4.4 The Petitioner – wife filed MAT. Appeal (FC) No. 3 of
2017 u/s. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before the
Delhi High Court to challenge the Order dated 26.12.2016
passed by the Family Court. G
The Delhi High Court vide Order dated 19.09.2017
dismissed the Appeal, and held that the issue of custody of
the children should be decided by the court having closest
connection with the children, which is the Courts in the U.S.
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A 4.5 Aggrieved, the Petitioner -wife challenged filed Civil Appeal
No. 2291 of 2018 before this Court to challenge Judgment
dated 19.09.2017.
4.6 This Court vide Order dated 20.02.2018 allowed the Civil
Appeal filed by the Petitioner – wife, and set aside the Order
B passed under Order VII Rule 11. The case was remitted to
the Family Court to be decided on merits.
4.7 The Family Court vide Order dated 20.08.2018 decided
that the Indian Courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain
the Petition u/S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
C The Family Court held that the Petitioner – wife was
an American citizen. She had an American Passport, with
an OCI Card. The minor girl – Ishnoor was also holding an
American passport. On account of the Petitioner – wife
having prolonged her stay in India, the passport of the
daughter expired in October 2017, which has not been
D
renewed ever since. Insofar as the son is concerned, the
Petitioner - wife had not obtained the U.S. Passport even
though he was an American citizen by birth. Both children
had no valid documents for their stay in India. Since the
children were residing in India in breach of immigration laws,
E they would not fall within the ambit of ‘ordinarily residing’
in India as provided by Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards
Act.
On the issue of custody, the Family Court held that
the paramount interest of the children would lie in shared
F parenting by the parties in the U.S., and that the Petitioner
– wife was not entitled to the sole custody of the children.
With respect to jurisdiction, the Family Court held
that the Indian Courts would lack jurisdiction to entertain
the Guardianship Petition.
G Aggrieved, the Petitioner – wife filed MAT. Appeal (FC) No. 244
of 2018 before the Delhi High Court to assail the Order dated 20.08.2018
passed by the Family Court. The High Court by the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 01.07.2019 dismissed the appeal.
The High Court held that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
H Act, 1956 does not override the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1151
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
is supplemental to the latter. s. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 A
provides that the Court where the child ‘ordinarily resides’ would have
jurisdiction to decide the issues of guardianship and custody.
The High Court noted that the Petitioner – wifehad purchased
properties in the U.S., and had applied for U.S. citizenship in 2012, which
was granted to her in 2013, and was not surrendered to date. These B
facts reflect that the Petitioner – wife did not intend to make India her
permanent home.
The conduct of the parties revealed that they had abandoned their
domicile of origin in India, and therefore, could not be said to be ‘ordinarily
residing’ in India. As a consequence, the courts in Delhi would have no C
jurisdiction to entertain the Petition u/S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890.
The Court held that it would not be difficult for the minor girl –
Ishnoor to get accustomed to the life and environment of America, since
she was 7 years old, and had spent the initial 4 years of her life in the D
U.S. Once she starts going to school in the U.S., she would acclimatize
herself to that country. The minor son – Paramvir being a little over two
years old would be in a position to adapt to the lifestyle and customs of
the US.
The High Court held that this was not a case where the children E
had grown up and rooted themselves in India. The welfare of the children
would lie in joint parenting by both parents in the U.S., which was not
possible if the wife retained the sole custody of the children in India. The
wife could therefore not be granted permanent and sole custody of the
children.
F
The Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High
Court dismissing the MAT. Appeal (FC) No. 244 of 2018 has been
challenged by the Petitioner – wife before this Court by way of SLP
(C.) No. 20022/2019.
5. Habeas Corpus Proceedings in India
G
5.1 After dismissal of the first round of litigation pertaining to
the guardianship of the children, the Respondent – husband
filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 725 of 2017 before the Delhi
High Court for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to
direct the Petitioner-wife to produce the minor children i.e.
H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A Ishnoor and Paramvir before the Court, along with their
U.S. Passports. The Respondent – husband further prayed
that the High Court permit him to take the minor children
with him to the United States.
The High Court videJudgment and Order dated
B 06.03.2018 allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and
directed the Petitioner – wife to return to the U.S.along
with the two minor children within three weeks.
It was evident from the conduct of the parties that
they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had
C set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their
daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner – wife
decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted
in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her
children.
D The High Court held that the children have the right
to be brought up by both parents as a family in the U.S. It is
in the best interest of the children that the Petitioner – wife
returns to the U.S.
The High Court issued directions to the Respondent
E – husband to ensure that once the Petitioner – wife returns
to the U.S., she is not faced with any adversity or hostility
by the Respondent – husband, or the American legal system.
The High Court further directed the Respondent –
husband to move the Superior Court, Judicial District
F Stamford, Norwalk for re-call of Orders dated 17.11.2016
and 25.01.2017 wherein the Petitioner – wife was directed
to grant temporary physical and legal custody of the minor
children to the Respondent – husband. Furthermore, when
the Petitioner – wife land sin the U.S. with the two minor
children, they shall not be removed from her custody.
G
The two minor children shall continue to remain in
the custody of the Petitioner – wife even after she returns
to the U.S., till the competent court in the U.S. passes fresh
orders on the aspect of temporary/permanent custody of
the children, after granting adequate opportunity of hearing
H to both parties. The Respondent – husband would not make
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1153
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
any attempt to take the minor children out of the custody of A
the Petitioner – wife by force. The Respondent – husband
shall however be entitled to meet the children and spend
time with them as may be mutually agreed between the
parties.
The Respondent – husband undertook not to initiate B
any criminal/contempt proceedings against the wife in the
U.S.
The High Court directed the Respondent – husband
to file an Affidavit of Undertaking in terms of the conditions
mentioned in the Order dated 06.03.2018. C
5.2 In compliance with the Order dated 06.03.2018 passed by
the High Court, the Respondent – husband took the following
steps:-
a) Submitted an Affidavit of Undertaking dated 20.03.2018
before the Delhi High Court to comply with the D
directions stated hereinabove.
b) The Respondent obtained an Order dated 14.05.2018
from the Superior Court of Stamford, the operative part
of which is extracted hereinbelow:
E
“1. The prior orders for sole physical and legal custody
in favour of the Plaintiff shall be recalled.
2. The prior orders remain in place that Jasmeet Kaur is
to return immediately to Connecticut with the minor
children.
F
3. The minor children shall remain in the custody of
Jasmeet Kaur, and the Plaintiff shall have reasonable
interim visitation with the minor children as agreed or
Court ordered upon the minor children’s return with
Jasmeet Kaur to Connecticut, until further custody
orders are determined by the Connecticut Superior Court G
after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to both
the parties.
4. That the Affidavit of Undertaking of the Plaintiff,
confirming how he has confirmed his conduct to the
H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A Order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on March,
6, 2018, submitted as Exhibit B to the Motion for Order
(Tab 2 of Exhibit 2) is hereby approved and so ordered.
That Attorney William Taylor is hereby appointed as
escrow agent pursuant to Exhibit C to the Motion for
B Order (Tab 3 of Exhibit 2).”
c) The Respondent depositedan amount of USD 25,000 in an
Escrow Account to ensure compliance with the payment
terms. This account would be operated in accordance with
the directions and Orders of the US Supreme Court at
C Stamford, Connecticut, USA where the matter between the
parties was pending.
5.3 The High Court vide Order dated 21.05.2018 directed the
Petitioner – wife to return to the U.S. along with both the
children within 3 weeks, failing which, the children would
D be handed over to the Respondent – husband along with
their respective Passports.
5.4 The Petitioner – wife challenged the Orders dated
06.03.2018 and 21.05.2018 passed in the Habeas Corpus
Petition before this Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No.4858-
E 59/2018.
6. We have heard Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, Ld. Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner – wife, and Mr. Anil Malhotra, Ld. Counsel appearing
for the Respondent – husband.
6.1 During the course of arguments before this Court, the
F Petitioner – wife agreed to return to the U.S with the minor
children.
In these circumstances, we are not touching upon
the issue of jurisdiction.
7. We posted the matter for hearing in Chambers on
G 10.12.2019, when both parties alongwith the minor children
appeared before us. The Petitioner and Respondent perused
the directions which are being issued by this Order, and
agreed to the same.
We direct that both the present Special Leave
H Petitions be disposed of with the following directions :-
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1155
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
i. The parties will jointly apply to the U.S. Embassy for A
renewal of the U.S. Passport of their daughter –Ishnoor,
and for issuance of an American passport for their son –
Paramvir.
ii. The Petitioner – wife along with the two minor children-
Ishnoor and Paramvir will return to Norwalk, Connecticut, B
USA within a period of two weeks from the issuance of
the Passports of the minor children.
If the Petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid
direction, the children will be handed over to the Respondent
– husband who will take them back to the U.S. C
iii. The Respondent – husband offered that upon returning to
the U.S., the Petitioner – wife may return to the matrimonial
home at Norwalk, Connecticut.
If the Petitioner – wife however chooses to live
independently, the Respondent – husband will provide D
suitable accommodation to the Petitioner – wife in Norwalk,
Connecticut, with all basic amenities.
In the alternative, the Petitioner – wife may identify
a suitable accommodation, in the vicinity of Norwalk,
Connecticut, so that the Respondent – husband has access E
to the children.
iv. The Petitioner – wife undertakes to provide visitation and
unsupervised access to the Respondent – husband every
weekend, which arrangement may be modified by a Court
of competent jurisdiction in the U.S. F
v. The Respondent – husband offered that upon returning to
the U.S., the Petitioner – wife may continue to practice
dentistry at their joint clinic viz. South End Dental Clinic at
Stamford.
If the Petitioner – wife is not interested to jointly G
practice with the Respondent – husband at their clinic, the
parties may take steps to divide the assets equally. The
division of assets shall be completed within a period of 4
months.
H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A vi. The Respondent – husband will take steps to get the children
admitted to a reputed school in the vicinity.
vii. The Respondent – husband has agreed to provide the
following expenses to the Petitioner – wife:
1. $ 2000 approx. towards rent
B
2. $ 1000 towards food/clothing/other needs
3. $1000 towards child care/nanny
4. $200 towards car expenses
5. $100 towards fuel expenses
C
6. $454.85 towards health insurance of the wife
7. $281.07 towards health insurance of the minor
daughter – Ishnoor
8. $281.07 towards health insurance of the minor son
D – Paramvir
9. $899 towards pre-school fees of Ishnoor
10. $1500 towards legal expenses
That even though the aforesaid amounts work out to approximately,
E US $7,715, we direct that the amount be rounded off to US $8,000 per
month to the Petitioner – wife to meet all her expenses.
The payment of these expenses would be made for a maximum
period of 12 months, or until the Petitioner–wife gets employed in the
U.S. and obtains division of their assets, whichever is earlier.
F
The amount deposited in the Escrow Account by the Respondent
– husband as a security to ensure compliance of the payment terms will
continue during this period. The Escrow Account shall be operated as
per Orders passed by a competent Court in the U.S.
viii. After the assets are divided, both parties will share equally
G the expenses towards the education and upbringing of the
children.
ix. We were informed that the Petitioner – wife has instituted
Divorce proceedings against the Respondent – husband
before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi. The
H
JASMEET KAUR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 1157
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
Petitioner – wife has agreed to withdraw the divorce A
proceedings within a period of two weeks from this Order.
The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of in the above-
mentioned terms.
B
Ankit Gyan SLPs disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "custody"Sign in to search