S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CR. APPEAL NO.2357 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5995 of 2009
SHILPA AGGARWAL Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
AVIRAL MITTAL & ANR. Respondent (s)
Date : 09/12/2009 This Petition was called on for judgment today.
For Appellant (s) Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar,Adv.
Mr. S.S. Jauhar,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment placed on the file.
There will be no order as to costs.
Let this matter be listed for further orders on
15th December, 2009.
(Ganga Thakur) (Ramesh Chander Joshi)
P.S. to Registrar Court Master
(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2357 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) NO.5995 of 2009)
Mrs. Shilpa Aggarwal … Appellant
Vs.
Mr. Aviral Mittal & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question which we are called upon to decide in
this case is whether a 3½ year old girl child, who was
born in England of Indian parents and is a British
citizen by birth, can be kept in the custody of the
mother who is now currently residing in India, despite
an order passed on 26th November, 2008, by the High
Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K., directing that
the child be returned to the jurisdiction of the Courts
of England and Wales.
3. This is one of those cases where a minor child
below 4 years of age is the victim of the acrimony of
the two adults who were responsible for her birth. The
appellant was married to the Respondent No.1 herein on
4th November, 2003, and as the Respondent No.1 was
already working in the United Kingdom since November,
2000, the parties set up their matrimonial home first
in Scotland and then in England. A girl child, who is
now 3½ years of age, was born of the said marriage.
The appellant herein also obtained employment in U.K.
and both the Respondent No.1 and the appellant acquired
the status of permanent residents of U.K. in 2004 prior
to the birth of the child on 20th February, 2006. Being
born in the United Kingdom, the child acquired British
citizenship and was the holder of a British passport,
although, her parents continued to hold Indian
passports.
4. Soon after the birth of the child, some
disagreements seem to have developed between the couple
but, in any event, the appellant along with the minor
child came to India on 12th September, 2008. The
Respondent No.1 also came to India on 10th October,
2008, and returned to the United Kingdom on 14th
October, 2008. According to the Respondent No.1, the
appellant herein was supposed to join him in his family
house at New Delhi once he arrived in India, but it is
his case that she chose not to do so. According to the
Respondent No.1, the appellant and the minor child were
supposed to leave for U.K. on 9th November, 2008, but
the appellant got their tickets cancelled on 7th
November, 2008, and remained behind in India. The
Respondent No.1 thereupon started proceedings before
the High Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K., on
25th November, 2008, praying for an order that the minor
child be made a ward of the Court and for a direction
upon the appellant to return the minor child to the
jurisdiction of the said Court. On such ex-parte
application, the High Court of Justice, Family
Division, U.K., on 26th November, 2009, directed the
appellant herein by an ex-parte order to return the
minor child, Ms. Elina, to the jurisdiction of the said
Court. A further direction was given for the passport
and other international travel documents of the minor
child to be handed over to the Solicitors of the
Respondent No.1 within 72 hours of the return of the
child and the same were not to be released to either
party without the permission of the High Court.
5. According to the Respondent No.1, since the parties
had set up their matrimonial home in Scotland, and,
thereafter, in England, they were subject to the
jurisdiction of the Courts in U.K. since 2003. In
addition, the parties had worked for gain in U.K. and
the minor child was also holding a British passport
with the parents having acquired permanent resident
status in U.K. It was thus the case of the Respondent
No.1 that the status of the minor child in India was
that of an “illegal migrant” in view of the directions
passed by the English Courts and the child should be
returned to that jurisdiction.
6. According to the appellant, the proceedings in the
United Kingdom were taken behind her back and it is
only on 1st December, 2008, that she received a copy of
the proceedings filed before the High Court of Justice,
Family Division, U.K. Immediately thereafter, on 4th
December, 2008, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1553 of 2008
was filed by Mr. Shanti Bhushan (father of the
Respondent No.l), allegedly on the strength of a
Special Power of Attorney executed by the Respondent
No.1 in his favour, seeking protection of the minor
child before the Delhi High Court and for a direction
that custody of the minor child be handed over to him.
Notice was issued on the said writ petition and on 16th
December, 2008, the appellant was represented before
the Delhi High Court through her learned counsel.
Incidentally, it may be indicated that 15th December,
2008, was also said to have been fixed by the High
Court in U.K. for hearing of the petition filed by the
Respondent No.1 and also for the appearance of the
appellant herein.
7. On 7th January, 2009, the Delhi High Court directed
both the parties to appear before the Delhi High Court
Mediation Centre on 9th January, 2009, to explore the
possibility of a settlement and also gave visitation
rights to the Respondent No.1 to see his minor
daughter. It further appears that on 17th January,
2009, the minor child was admitted to Apeejay School,
Pitampura, Delhi, and the appellant was appointed as
the Computer Coordinator on 20th January, 2009 in the
said school. It appears that the mediation proceedings
took place between the parties on 25th February, 2009,
but there was no positive outcome and, on the other
hand, it is the appellant’s case that while surfing
through her Orkut Profile on 27th April, 2009, she came
to learn that the Respondent No.1 was claiming to be
“single” as if his marriage with the appellant was not
subsisting.
8. On 7th August, 2009, the Delhi High Court disposed
of the writ petition filed by the father of the
Respondent No.1 (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1553 of 2008)
by passing the following order :-
“At the first instance, a period of 14 days be granted
to Respondent No.2 (Petitioner herein) to take the
child of her own to England and join the proceedings
before the Courts of England and Wales, failing which
the child be handed over to the petitioner to be taken
to England as a measure of interim custody and
thereafter it is for the courts of England and Wales to
determine which parent would be best suited to have the
custody of the child.”
The present appeal has been filed challenging the
said order of the High Court.
1. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Pallav
Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate, submitted
that while passing the impugned order, the Delhi
High Court appears to have lost sight of the fact
that the interest of the minor is of paramount
importance in matters relating to custody and
particularly in this case where the minor was a
girl child and was just about 3½ years old. The
learned counsel also submitted that the
proceedings taken in the United Kingdom had been
taken behind the back of the appellant, without
notice to her, despite the fact that both she and
child were in India where the child had already
been admitted in a school and was being properly
cared for and looked after by the appellant. Mr.
Shishodia submitted that in the interest of the
minor child, the Delhi High Court ought not to
have given such directions which had the effect
of the minor child having to be handed over to
the custody of her paternal grandparents who had
not even maintained any contact with the child.
10. Mr. Shishodia urged that having regard to the
provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, whereunder the mother is
entitled to retain custody of the minor child under the
age of 5 years, the High Court erred in directing the
appellant to submit herself and her minor daughter, who
were both Hindus, to the jurisdiction of a foreign
court in terms of an interim order passed in
proceedings taken before the said court for the purpose
of deciding the question of custody. He also
questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue
a writ in the nature of mandamus to a private
individual to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign
court in a habeas corpus proceeding.
11. Mr. Shishodia submitted that an almost similar
question had been considered and decided by this Court
in Sarita Sharma vs. Sushil Sharma (2003 (3) SCC 14],
wherein it was held that even a decree passed by a
foreign court could not override the consideration
relating to the welfare of the minor child. It was
held that what was of paramount importance was the
interest of the minor child, a principle which is
universally recognized and accepted. It was submitted
that in the aforesaid decision this Court had also
observed that all the technicalities involving
jurisdiction and Comity of Courts would have to give
way to the issue involving the welfare of the minor.
Everything else pales into significance in deciding the
matter of custody of a minor child and especially a
minor child below the age of 5 years.
12. Mr. Shishodia contended that the High Court had
erroneously relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Mrs. Surinder Kaur Sandhu vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu &
Anr. [(1984)3 SCC 698] which was based on the principle
of Comity of Courts, which had been taken note of in
Sarita Sharma’s case (supra).
13. A further submission was made to the effect that
the High Court had erred in holding that although the
custody of the minor child with the mother was not
illegal at the inception, it became so after the
directions given by the High Court of Justice, Family
Division, U.K., on 26th November, 2008, to return the
child to its jurisdiction within 14 days, failing which
the appellant herein would be guilty of contempt of
court and could also be sent to prison, fined or her
assets could be seized. It was contended that the High
Court ought not to have ousted its own jurisdiction as
well as the jurisdiction of the Indian courts to decide
the question of custody of the minor child in
accordance with the law of the land where the minor
child is currently resident, particularly in the
absence of any allegation of kidnapping or of bringing
the minor into India in breach of any foreign decree or
injunction. Yet another question which was raised was
with regard to the psychological damage that could be
caused on an impressionable mind which could ultimately
destroy the mental orientation and moral fabric of a
minor child.
14. Mr. Shishodia laid special stress on the decision
of this Court in Sarita Sharma’s case (supra), in which
the question of custody of children in almost similar
circumstances came up for consideration. In the said
case an American Court had put the children born out of
the marriage in the care of the respondent-husband, but
in exercising visitation rights, the appellant-wife
picked up the children from her husband’s residence and
brought them to India despite the American Court’s
order. A writ petition for issuance of a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus was filed by the husband in the
Delhi High Court and having regard to the conduct of
the appellant-mother, the High Court directed her to
hand over the custody of the children to her husband
and permit him to take them to the U.S.A. The said
order being challenged in the Supreme Court, this Court
held that although the appellant’s conduct of removing
the children from the U.S.A. was a relevant fact, it
could not override the various aspects relating to the
welfare of the children. This Court thereupon held
that the High Court had erred in restoring the custody
of the children to the husband on the sole ground of
breach of the order of the American Court and that the
High Court should have directed the respondent-husband
to initiate proceedings for holding a full-fledged
inquiry as to what would be in the interest of the
children having regard to the provisions of Section 6
of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
15. Mr. Shishodia urged that even in the said case the
question of lawful custody of the children cropped up.
This Court observed that before she came to India with
the children, the appellant-wife was in lawful custody
of the children. The question which had to be answered
was whether custody became illegal as she had committed
breach of the order of the American Courts directing
her not to remove the children from the jurisdiction of
that court without its permission. In the said case,
in a decree of divorce an order of the custody of
children had already been passed, and the same was a
further consideration for deciding the question as to
whether the custody of the children became illegal
thereafter. Mr. Shishodia pointed out that, as
indicated hereinbefore, Surinder Kaur’s case (supra)
had been considered in Sarita Sharma’s case (supra),
where a distinction having been made on the ground of
the welfare of the minor child being paramount, this
Court held that the interest of the minor child would
be best served in allowing the mother to retain custody
of the said children, notwithstanding the orders passed
by the American Courts. The writ petition filed by the
respondent-husband was, accordingly, dismissed by the
Appeal Court on the basis of the circumstances relating
to the welfare of the minor.
16. To further strengthen his submissions, Mr.
Shishodia also referred to the decision of this Court
in (i) Rajesh K. Gupta vs. Ram Gopal Agarwala & Ors.
[(2005) 5 SCC 359]; and (ii) Dhanwanti Joshi vs. Madhav
Unde [(1998) 1 SCC 112]. In Rajesh K. Gupta’s case
(supra) in relation to a matrimonial and child custody
dispute the husband, an Advocate-on- Record practising
in the Supreme Court, filed a writ petition for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus for custody of his minor
daughter. There also this Court held that in an
application for a writ of habeas corpus for custody of
a minor child the principal consideration for the court
would be to ascertain whether the custody of the child
can be said to be lawful or illegal and whether the
welfare of the child required that the child should be
left in the care and custody of someone else. It was
also noted that in case of disputes between the mother
and father regarding the custody of their child, the
paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and
not the legal right of either of the parties. Mr.
Shishodia submitted that notwithstanding the
allegations regarding the wife’s mental condition, the
court thought it fit to allow her to remain in custody
of the minor child.
17. In the other decision in Dhanwanti Joshi’s case
(supra), the claim of the father for custody of the
child on the ground of his having superior financial
capacity to give his child immediate American
education, was negated and it was held that having
superior financial capacity cannot be the sole
consideration for change of custody from mother to
father. This Court held that while the child in his
mother’s custody was getting good education and doing
well in studies, the proposal of an immediate American
education, which the father was prepared to finance,
could not be a sufficient ground for shifting the child
to the father’s custody. It was also observed that the
child, who was a citizen of U.S.A. by birth, could go
to U.S.A. in his own right in future, whenever it was
so decided.
18. Mr. Shishodia submitted that the reasoning of the
High Court based solely on the doctrine of the Comity
of Courts, without giving proper importance to the
welfare of the minor, could not be sustained and was
required to be set aside.
19. On the other hand, Mr. Debal Banerjee, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.1,
contended that the decision of the High Court to apply
the principle of the Comity of Courts was wholly
justified, inasmuch as, there was an existence of an
order, even if interim in nature, directing the
appellant within a period of 14 days to voluntarily
take the child to England and to join the proceedings
before the Court of England and Wales, failing which
the child was to be handed over to the respondent to
be taken to England as a measure of interim custody,
and, thereafter, it would be for the Courts of England
and Wales to determine which of the parents would be
best suited to the custody of the child.
20. Mr. Banerjee submitted that although in Sarita
Sharma’s case (supra) the decision in Surinder Kaur’s
case was noticed and a passage from the said judgment
was also extracted, in the ultimate analysis the Court
felt that the minor children should be handed over to
the mother as it would be in the best interest of the
children to be with the mother since they too expressed
the desire to stay with her. Mr. Banerjee submitted
that in the said case also the Court had to resort to a
chance that the dispute would ultimately be settled
and, on such consideration, the writ petition filed by
the respondent-husband was dismissed.
21. Reliance was also placed on the oft-repeated
decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Elizabeth
Dinshaw vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Anr.
[(1987) 1 SCC 42]. The facts of the said case have a
good deal of similarity with the facts of the instance
case, where also, in view of the father secretly
bringing the child to India against the express orders
of the American Court, the mother filed a habeas corpus
petition before the Supreme Court for restoration of
the child’s custody. In the background of the said
facts, this Court held that the mother was entitled to
the child’s custody, with liberty to take the child to
the U.S.A. and the father could pursue the matter
before the U.S. Court for restoration of the visitation
rights which had earlier been granted in his favour.
22. Mr. Banerjee contended that when there was an
existing order of a foreign court, the prayer for
deciding the matter for the same relief ought not to be
granted. The learned counsel submitted that there was
no ground whatsoever, for this Court to interfere with
the order of the High Court which had been passed in
the interest of the minor girl child.
· From the materials disclosed in this case, we
find ourselves placed between two contrasting
principles of law which we are required to
balance keeping in mind the interests of a
minor 3½ year old girl child. Of the two
principles, the High Court has placed greater
reliance upon the theory of Comity of Nations
and Comity of Judgments of the Courts of two
different countries in deciding the matter.
Having held that the High Court of Justice,
Family Division, U.K., was already in seisin
of the matter and had passed an interim order
of restraint and having further regard to the
fact that the interests of a 3½ year old
minor girl child was involved, the Delhi High
Court directed that the custody of the child
be made over to the father in England and in
the alternative to the grand-parents in India
who would return the child to the
jurisdiction of the U.K. Courts. Even while
considering the interests of the minor child,
the High Court felt that due respect had to
be given to the orders of the U.K. Court as
the U.K. Court was closest to the issue
involving the custody of the minor child who
was a British citizen.
24. There is yet another aspect of the matter on which
the High Court has stressed. The High Court has
noticed the fact that both the appellant wife and the
respondent husband had set up their matrimonial home in
Scotland and thereafter in England since 2003. Both
the parents had been working for gain in the U.K. and
while the minor child was holding a British Passport,
the parents had acquired permanent resident status in
the U.K.
25. It is not as if the High Court was oblivious of the
fact that it was the paramount duty of the Court to
look after the interests of the minor child. It has
referred to the celebrated decision of this Court in
Elizabeth Dinshaw’s case (supra), wherein it was
emphasized that in matters of custody of minor
children, the sole and predominant criterion is the
interest and welfare of the minor. Further, while
relying upon the judgment in Sarita Sharma’s case
(supra), the High Court did consider the decision in
Surinder Kaur’s case (supra), where the facts were very
similar. Yet, the High Court, relying on the decision
of this Court in Sarita Sharma’s case (supra) came to
the conclusion that the Courts in this country cannot
be guided entirely by the fact that one of the parents
had violated the order passed by a competent foreign
Court. Choosing to rely on the doctrine of Comity of
Courts, the High Court directed the appellant to return
the minor child to the jurisdiction of the U.K. Court
as the said Court was closest to the issue involving
the custody of the child and would thoroughly examine
the claim of the appellant and the Respondent No.1 to
be entrusted with the custody of the child.
26. Although, Mr. Shishodia relied heavily on the
decision in Surinder Kaur’s case, it cannot be ignored
that the said case has duly considered the principle
that the interest of the minor is paramount in any
decision relating to custody. It is but natural that in
a matrimonial tussle both the parents would want the
custody of the minor child. In this tussle, we have to
decide who would be more suited to have custody of the
child. In our view, the High Court appears to have
taken the correct approach in a matter like this.
Although, on first impression, it would appear that the
interests of the minor child would best be served if
she is allowed to remain with the appellant, we cannot
lose sight of the order dated 26th November, 2008,
passed by the High Court of Justice, Family Division,
U.K., which admittedly is an ex-parte order and, inter
alia, reads as follows :-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT :-
1. The minor, Elina Mittal (date of birth 20th
February, 2006), shall remain a ward of court
during her minority or until further order,
2.The Defendant mother, Shilpa Agarwal, do within 14
days of service of this order upon her cause the
said minor to be returned to the jurisdiction of
England and Wales,
3.Following the return of the said minor to England
and Wales, the Defendant mother shall thereafter be
forbidden (whether by herself or by instructing or
encouraging any other person) from causing or
permitting the minor to be removed from the
jurisdiction of England and Wales without the
permission of a High Court judge.
4. Within 72 hours of the return of the said minor to
England and Wales, the Defendant mother must
deliver up to the Plaintiff father’s solicitors,
Messrs Lyons Davidson of Victoria House, 51
Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6AD all passports and
international travel documents for the child on the
basis that those documents will be held by that
firm to the order of the court and will not be
released to either party without the permission of
a High Court Judge;
5.Within 72 hours of the return of the said minor to
England and Wales, the Defendant mother must
provide the Plaintiff father’s solicitors, Messrs
Lyons Davidson of Victoria House, 51 Victoria
Street, Bristol BS1 6AD with full details in
writing of any address at which she intends to
reside with the child and a contact telephone
number for herself; she must also provide to the
father’s solicitors in writing full details of any
new address to which she intends to move with the
child prior to such move taking place.
6.There be liberty to the Defendant mother to apply
to vary or discharge any provision of this order
upon giving 24 hours’ notice to the Plaintiff
father’s solicitors, Messrs Lyons Davidson of
Victoria House, 51 Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6AD
(of PMM/CLP; telephone number 01179046000) ; any
such application shall be supported by a sworn
affidavit.
7.The application shall be adjourned and listed at
risk for further directions before a High Court
Judge sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand London at 10.30 am on 15 December 2009 (time
estimate ½ hour).
8.The costs of this application be reserved:
AND NOW THEREFORE this Court respectfully invites all
judicial and administrative bodies in the Republic of
India to render assistance in ensuring that the minor
Elina Mittal is returned as soon as possible to the
jurisdiction of England and Wales.”
27. It is evident from the aforesaid order that except for insisting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the English Court did not intend to separate the child from the appellant until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child.
The ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the English Courts having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the U.K. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the U.K.
The High Court has taken note of the fact that the English Court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the respondent father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the U.K. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. In our view, the approach of the High Court takes into consideration both the questions relating to the Comity of Courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of a minor child. It has been rightly observed by the High Court following the decision in Surinder Kaur’s case (supra) that it was the English Courts which had the most intimate contact with the issue in question to decide the same.
28. The fact that the minor child has been declared a ward of the English Court till she attains majority, is also a matter of considerable importance in considering whether the impugned order of the High Court should be interfered with or not.
29. We are satisfied from the materials produced before us and the submissions made on behalf of the parties that the High Court did not commit any error in relying on the doctrine of Comity of Courts since the question of what is in the interest of the minor still has to be considered by the U.K. Court and the interim order passed in the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 is only of an interim nature with a view to return the child to the jurisdiction of the said Court.
30. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in order to implement the directions of the High Court, the Respondent husband shall provide the initial expenses of the appellant and the minor child for travelling to and staying at the U.K. for at least a month to attend and contest the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 before the High Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K.
31. Let this matter be listed for further orders on 15th December, 2009, to enable the respondent-husband to submit a proposal as to how the travel arrangements and the arrangements for the appellant and her minor daughter to stay in the U.K., at least for a month, is to be made. Till then the interim order passed in the appeal shall continue to be operative.
32. There will be no order as to costs.
………… ……… ……… ……… ……… J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
………… ……… ……… ……… ……… …J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi
Dated : December 9, 2009
Thank you for posting this judgement. This is exactly what happened in my case matter. My children never returned to UK since 2005 and in 2006 the case was posted in the Royal Courts of Justice and Justice Singer relied on Sarita and Sushil Sharma judgement and did not give an order for return of children to uk. However it seems now the courts in UK may have identified the loophole and misuse of children ward of English courts.The case posted is similiar to my situation. The solution to this not to happen again is to send the mother to prison. I have lost permanent contact with my children as she had removed them to India by the back door of courts temporary permission. The RCJ was reluctant to give an order of their return to UK. I hope the child now is in UK in the case posted. The courts in England or in India are unable to define what is in the best interest of the child. I think the father is lucky that he was not slapped with a 498A. My best wishes for the child in UK. At the lack of common sense on the Courts in India many children lost contact with their father and many NRI’S in such matters are wrecked due to self motivated interest of Courts in India. In conclusion a foreign judgement is unenforceble in India without having to do another set of proceddings in India. This is pathetic and reflects the attitude of nodding dogs.
dear mr,brahmaiah,
i feel sad to hear about your pain.
to give credit where its due,in this case indian courts.
though i,my daughter are suffering because of the indian supreme court order of 2nd.feb2010 which asked them to return to u.k.and to be maintained by aviral for all the detailed (and duly agreed by him in courts,) expenses/house/legal exoenses etc. and all for as long as they have to be in u.k. for fighting child custody case there filed by him in u.k.
and this order was duly mirrored by london court on2nd mar2010.
but he has gone back on all except making 2 months advance payments,refusung to pay monthly expenses and maintaining house in fully furnished,habitable state.more so he has given eviction notice to her and make her homeless after 15th june.
he lured her and minor girl child to return to u.k. by promising patch up and giving marriage a try but within a week of our arrival in swindon,he served divorce notice on her.
i was forced out of house and retun back to india-delhi so as to be spared from insults,threats of aviral and to minimise expenses there without any promised maintenance.
i am sure every case is different but whom will you blame now,indian courts or such person like aviral and the prevailing legal system in u.k. to provide relief to such hapless victim NRI.she has applied for job/social security agencies which are so cumbersome and time consumig to say the least.
i wanted to share this all with you and all who may care.
i wish you get justice and be with your child sooner but lets view every case with open mind and not forgetting our humanity.
may god help you and all those who are suffering injustice
ref. to june 11,2010 comments,i wish to update of the misconduct of aviral.
1-he is being investigated for email hacking by delhi police
2-domestic violence case was lodged/accepted against him.
3-to avoid legal maintenance to her estranged wife(mutual divorce as shilpa decided to get rid of such a malicious,evil minded man ,without contesting it in swindon court)
4-he is still indulging in white lies only to avoid his responsibilities towards upkeep of the child and ex-wife,though he maintains a luxurious life style and claims to be highly indebted but maintains bmw-high end model car and is spendthrift to core
though we are as a family not sad to get rid of such an evil person from our life,we want to warn others,esp.any girl/lady who might fall into his trap and spoil her life by marrying such a lier,hacker and irresponsible person as husband/father.his sole loyaly is to her cousin sister,yukti and parents who keep extracting money from him and alas he seems to be happy about it all.
my only intention to put on all this is to inform you the concerned ones so as to be careful of such a man.
should any one want proofs of what i said,contact me for same.
dr.v.k.agarwal