This court referred to a large number of decisions and accepted the following observations, conclusions and principles: The comity of nations does not require a court to blindly follow an order made by a foreign court.[14] Due weight should be given to the views formed by the courts of a foreign country of which the child is a national. The comity of courts demands not the enforcement of an order of a foreign court but its grave consideration.[15] The weight and persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.[16] The welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration,[17] whatever orders may have been passed by the foreign court.[18] The domestic court is bound to consider what is in the best interests of the child. Although the order of a foreign court will be attended to as one of the circumstances to be taken into account, it is not conclusive, one way or the other.[19] One of the considerations that a domestic court must keep in mind is that there is no danger to the moral or physical health of the child in repatriating him or her to the jurisdiction of the foreign country.[20] While considering whether a child should be removed to the jurisdiction of the foreign court or not, the domestic court may either conduct a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry in this regard. In the event the domestic court conducts a summary inquiry, it would return the custody of the child to the country from which the child was removed unless such return could be shown to be harmful to the child. In the event the domestic court conducts an elaborate inquiry, the court could go into the merits as to where the permanent welfare of the child lay and ignore the order of the foreign court or treat the fact of removal of the child from another country as only one of the circumstances.[21] An order that the child should be returned forthwith to the country from which he or she has been removed in the expectation that any dispute about his or her custody will be satisfactorily resolved in the courts of that country may well be regarded as being in the best interests of the child.[22] The modern theory of conflict of laws recognizes and, in any event, prefers the jurisdiction of the State which has the most intimate contact with the issues arising in the case. Jurisdiction is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances such as the circumstance as to where the child, whose custody is in issue, is brought or for the time being lodged.[23]
Supreme Court of India
Surya Vadanan vs State Of Tamilnadu & Ors on 27 February, 2015
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Uday Umesh Lalit
Citation;AIR2015SC2243, I(2015)DMC722SC,(2015)5SCC450
Print Page
