Yashita sahu biography of mahatma

When I was in the US some years back, several young men of Indian origin met me and related to me their predicament.

They had migrated to the US several years ago and settled there with good jobs.

Yashita sahu biography of mahatma Must Watch. In cases like the present one where the parents are in two different continents effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody. State of Rajasthan. Surety document FD receipt in original, RC of vehicle etc " You can buy this form from the stationary shop.

They had married girls living in India, and brought them to the US and later had children.

Thereafter, either because the wife was unhappy with the marriage, or because she could not adjust to life in the US, or for some other reason, she would one day, without informing her husband, leave for India with the child.

This was often done surreptitiously when the husband had gone for work.

Since then she was living in India with their child, and refused to join her husband in the US. Sometimes, the husband was not even allowed to see his child when he went for a short trip to India. Some such husbands applied to a US court which ordered restoration of custody of the children to them, but orders of US courts are not binding in India.

Such young fathers were crestfallen, and some even wept before me since they could not see their children for years.

They have formed an association called Bring Our Kids Home, whose office bearers also approached me as they probably thought that being a former Indian Supreme Court justice, I could be of help.

There is a Hague Convention of for restoration of custody of such abducted children, but India has not signed it, and so it does not apply to India.

Efforts have been made to remedy this situation, but as yet to no avail

Since the children were in India, all that such young fathers could do was to approach the appropriate court in India, which is a district court, for custody.

However, as is well known, Indian courts are overburdened, and so take many years to decide cases. Thereafter, there may be an appeal to the High Court, and later even to the Supreme Court, and that too may take several years.

Also, the law in India is that in custody matters, the paramount principle is the welfare of the child, and, especially when the child is of tender age, the courts often think that the child's welfare requires that he/she should remain with the mother.

Even if the father has obtained a decree from a US court that the child should be restored to the father, such a foreign decree is not binding on Indian courts.

The Indian court will of course grant visitation rights to the father, but to what avail will such an order be to a person holding a job in the US? He surely cannot be expected to come all the way from America to India every week, or even once a month, thus risking loss of his job.

In Yashita Sahu vs State of Rajasthan, , no doubt the Indian Supreme Court directed that even if the wife is unwilling to go back to the US, the child had to be sent back to the US.

However, a careful perusal of this judgment shows that it was delivered on the case's own peculiar facts, and no general principle was laid down that in every case of child abduction, the child must be restored to the father or the country from where he/she was abducted.

The court noted that the wife had herself approached a US court when she was living in the US and had entered into an agreement with her husband that every week for some days the child would be with her, and on other days with her husband.

Yashita sahu biography of mahatma gandhi He surely cannot be expected to come all the way from America to India every week, or even once a month, thus risking loss of his job. The Court further highlighted that decisions should not be hindered by technical objections but should focus on the best interests of the child, and that it was necessary for a child to have the love and care of both parents, provided neither parent is proven unfit. In this fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and litigations between two spouses, our experience shows that more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain and he or she alone is entitled to the custody of the child. In cases like the present one where the parents are in two different continents effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody.

She violated this agreement and took away the child to India, even when proceedings were pending in the US court. In the circumstances, the US court ordered restoration of custody to the father.

In para 10 of its judgment in Yashita Sahu's case, the Indian Supreme Court quoted the earlier observation of the court in Nithya Anand Raghavan vs State "Each case must depend on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case whilst considering the welfare of the child, which is of paramount importance." But that decision went on to add "The order of the foreign court must yield to the welfare of the child.”

In Yashita Sahu's case, the Supreme Court also referred, in para 11, to its earlier decision in Kanika Goel vs State where it was observed "The issue ought not to be decided on the basis of the rights of the parties claiming custody of the minor child, but on the best interest of the child."

In para 13 of Yashita Sahu's case, it was also observed "Though the interest of the child is of paramount importance, the court of one jurisdiction should respect the order of a competent court, even if it is beyond its territories."

In para 16, the court went on to observe "We are of the opinion that the doctrine of comity of courts is a very healthy doctrine.

If courts in different jurisdictions do not respect the orders passed by each other, it will lead to contradictory orders being passed in different jurisdictions."

However, the court added "No hard and fast guidelines can be laid down in this regard, and each case has to be decided on its own facts."

Thus, from its observations in paragraphs 10 and 16, it is evident that the Indian Supreme Court was not laying down any general principle except that the welfare of the child in such cases is of paramount importance.

The law on the issue is therefore still nebulous, and the predicament of young fathers whose children have been abducted by the mothers is likely to continue.

Justice Markandey Katju retired from the Supreme Court in

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.