# MRS. ELIZABETH DINSHA W v. ARVAND M. DINSHAW AND ANR - **Citation:** [1987] 1 S.C.R. 175 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1987 - **Bench:** V. Balakrishna Eradi, G.L. Oza - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mrs-elizabeth-dinsha-w-v-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-9337 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote B Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Divorce in USA-Minor ~ child-Custody given to mother and visiiation rights to father by American Court-Father abducted •the child and brought to 'India against express orders of the American Court-Orders of proper foreign .7' Court-Should be regarded-Child restored to mother to be taken back C 1 ·to U.S.A. The petitioner, a citizen of the United States of ~erica residing in Michigan, was married to the first respondent,' an Indian citizen, who after marriage settled down in the United States and secured em!>" loyment. A male child was horn to the couple in America. Differences D arose between them and the petitioder alongwith her son took up sepa- . rate residence. She fled a petition for divorce in the Circuit Court for the country of saginaw, Michigan which granted a decree holding that there had been a breakdown in the marriage relationship and declared the marriage as dissolved. The decree also directed that the .petitioner shall have the care, custody and control of the minor child until he E reaches the age of 18 years. The first respondent, the father was given visitation rights by the decree. On the subject of travel with the minor child to any place outside tbe United States, it was directed that only on a petition tbe Court shall make a determination as to whether ~uch travel is in the best interest of the minor child, and what conditions shall be set-forth to ensure the child's return. The 'Court also directed that F the first respondent shall notify the Office of the Friend .of the Court promptly concerning any changes in his address. Taking advantage of the weekend visitation rights granted by the said decree, the first respondent picked up the child from his school and secretly left America for India on January I Ith, 1986. He bad not G intimated the Court about his intention to take the child out of its jurisdiction and outside the country nor had he given the slightest indication to the petitioner about his intention to leave America perma- "nently for India. Immediately before leaving for India, the first respondent sold away his immovable property and it was only from the Airport that he posted a letter tendering his resignation from his job. H 175 A 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R. Coming to know that the minor child had not been returned to the day care centre by the first respondent, the petitioner moved' the Circuit Court complaining against the violation by the first respondent of the terms of the Conrt's decree: The Conrt isrued a warrant of arrest against the first respondent on the ground of unlawfnl taking and retaining the child ontside the State, followed hy the issne of a Federal B warrant of arrest on the ground of unlawfnl Oigbt to avoid prosecution. Since the .first respondent bad already come over to India with the minor child these warr3Jllts could not be executed in the United States. The Consular Officer, American Consulate General, Bombay, visited the residence of the first respondent's parents in Pone but the minor , child was not present there and the grand-parents reported that the _,,•r C child and his father had gone North, possibly to Kashmir and that they were not aware of their exact whereabouts. Thereafter, the .petitioner D filed a petition in this Court seeking the issnance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce in Conrt her minor child :I! and to hand over custody to her as the person entitled to it under the order of a competent foreign Court. In response to the notice isrued hy this Court, the fi..St respondent appeared and produced the child in Conrt and filed a connter-affidavit explaining his condnct the explanation tendered by him was that his father was seriously ill and be wanted bis father to see the child. It was further submitted that the· child prefers to stay with him in. Pone and E hence he was admitted in a School there and that it will be in the interest 'i of the child that be should be ## Text MRS. ELIZABETH DINSHA W A v. ARVAND M. DINSHAW AND ANR. NOVEMBER l l, 1986 [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.J B Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Divorce in USA-Minor ~ child-Custody given to mother and visiiation rights to father by American Court-Father abducted •the child and brought to 'India against express orders of the American Court-Orders of proper foreign .7' Court-Should be regarded-Child restored to mother to be taken back C 1 ·to U.S.A. The petitioner, a citizen of the United States of ~erica residing in Michigan, was married to the first respondent,' an Indian citizen, who after marriage settled down in the United States and secured em!>" loyment. A male child was horn to the couple in America. Differences D arose between them and the petitioder alongwith her son took up sepa- . rate residence. She fled a petition for divorce in the Circuit Court for the country of saginaw, Michigan which granted a decree holding that there had been a breakdown in the marriage relationship and declared the marriage as dissolved. The decree also directed that the .petitioner shall have the care, custody and control of the minor child until he E reaches the age of 18 years. The first respondent, the father was given visitation rights by the decree. On the subject of travel with the minor child to any place outside tbe United States, it was directed that only on a petition tbe Court shall make a determination as to whether ~uch travel is in the best interest of the minor child, and what conditions shall be set-forth to ensure the child's return. The 'Court also directed that F the first respondent shall notify the Office of the Friend .of the Court promptly concerning any changes in his address. Taking advantage of the weekend visitation rights granted by the said decree, the first respondent picked up the child from his school and secretly left America for India on January I Ith, 1986. He bad not G intimated the Court about his intention to take the child out of its jurisdiction and outside the country nor had he given the slightest indication to the petitioner about his intention to leave America perma- "nently for India. Immediately before leaving for India, the first respondent sold away his immovable property and it was only from the Airport that he posted a letter tendering his resignation from his job. H 175 A 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R. Coming to know that the minor child had not been returned to the day care centre by the first respondent, the petitioner moved' the Circuit Court complaining against the violation by the first respondent of the terms of the Conrt's decree: The Conrt isrued a warrant of arrest against the first respondent on the ground of unlawfnl taking and retaining the child ontside the State, followed hy the issne of a Federal B warrant of arrest on the ground of unlawfnl Oigbt to avoid prosecution. Since the .first respondent bad already come over to India with the minor child these warr3Jllts could not be executed in the United States. The Consular Officer, American Consulate General, Bombay, visited the residence of the first respondent's parents in Pone but the minor , child was not present there and the grand-parents reported that the _,,•r C child and his father had gone North, possibly to Kashmir and that they were not aware of their exact whereabouts. Thereafter, the .petitioner D filed a petition in this Court seeking the issnance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce in Conrt her minor child :I! and to hand over custody to her as the person entitled to it under the order of a competent foreign Court. In response to the notice isrued hy this Court, the fi..St respondent appeared and produced the child in Conrt and filed a connter-affidavit explaining his condnct the explanation tendered by him was that his father was seriously ill and be wanted bis father to see the child. It was further submitted that the· child prefers to stay with him in. Pone and E hence he was admitted in a School there and that it will be in the interest 'i of the child that be should be allowed to reside with him in India. Disposing of the petition, HELD: !. Whenever a question arises before Court pertaining to ~ F the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfareoftbeminor. [181F] 2. It is the duty of all Courts in all conntries ~o do all they can to ensure tbAt the wrongdoer does not gain an advantage by his wrongdoG ing. The Courts in all countries ought to be careful not to do anything to encourage the tendency of sudden and unauthorised removal' of children from one country to another.· This substitution of self-help for due process of law in this field can only harm the interests of the wards ~ generally, and a judge should pay due regard to the orders of the proper foreign Court unless he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that to do H ·so would inflict serious harm on the child. (1838-D] ELIZABETH D!NSHAW v. ARVAND M. DINSHAW 177 Re H. (infants), 1966 (I) All E.R. 886, relied upon. 3. The conduct of the first respondent in taking the child from the custody of the person to whom it had been entrusted hy the Court was undoubtedly most repprehensible. The explanation sought to be given, namely, his father's illness, is far from convincing and does not in any way justify such gross violation and contempt of the order of the Circuit Court in Michigan. [181 El 4. The child's presence in India is the result of an illegal act of , abduction and the father who is guilty of the said act cannot claim any --'{<. advantage by stating that he has already put the child in some school. ' The conduct of the father has not been such as _to inspire confidence in the Court that he is a fit and suitable person to he entrusted with the custody and guardianship of the child. [182C] 5. It will be in the best interest and welfare of the child that he should go back to the United States of America and continue his educa· tion there under the custody and guardianship of the mother to whom such custody and guardianship have been entrusted by a competent Court in that country. The petitioner who is the mother, it full of genuine love and affection for the child and she can be safely trusted to look after him, educate him, and attend in every possible way to his proper up-bringing. The child has not taken root in this country and he. is still accustomed and acclamatized to the place of his origin in the United States of America. [ !8IH-!82A, BJ 6. The·first respondent has tendered before this Court an unconditional apology. The proper, step to be .taken hy him is.to tender such an apology to the Court whose order he has violated. He has been found to be in contempt of the Circuit Court, Saginaw, Michigan for violation of its order and that Court has consequently terminated the visitation rights conferred on the first respondent. He may move that Court for modification of its order on tendering his unconditional apology to that Court. The petitioner shOuld cooperate with the respondent in the mat· . ter of enabling him to have restricted visitation rights in America and should also extend her cooperation for the withdrawal of the warrants of arrest outstanding against the first respondent. [183F-184C] .}- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 270 of 1986 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. A B c D E F G H A B 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R. Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioner. Kapil Sibal, Karanjawala, Mrs .. Karanjawala and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. Immediately· on conclusion of the hearing of arguments in the above Writ Petition on June t t, 1986, having regard to the urgency of the matter, we passed the following order:- ' c "We allow the Writ Petition and'direct that the minor boy,-'\ Dustan be restored forthwith to the ciistody of the peti· tioner i.e. the mother with liberty to the petitioner to take him to the United States. The child 'Wilt be a ward of the concerned Court in Michigan and it will be open to the father, first respondent herein to move that Court for a review of the custody of the child, if he is so advised. Detailed reasons will follow. The passport of the child which is in deposit with the Registrar of this Court will be returned to the petitioner i.e. the mother of the child today itself. The concerned authorities of the Govt. of India will afford alt facilities to the mother to take the child back to D E the United States pursuant to the order passed by this Court." We now proceed to state in this judgment our reasons in support of the order. F The petitioner, Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw is a citizen of the United States of America residing in the State of Michigan. She is employed as a case worker for the State of Michigan in Genesee County Depart· ment of Social Services, Flint Michigan. The first respondent, Mr. Arvand M .. Dinshaw, who. is an Indian citizen was a student at North· em Michigan _University·in 1971. During that period the petitioner was . G also studying there. What started as a friendship between them on the campus later developed into love and the petitioner was married to the first respondent in a civil ·marriage before a legal magistrate in Negaunee, Michigan on February 26, 1972. The first respondent there- -{ after settled down in the United States more or less on a permanent basis having secured employment as an Acc:Ountant for the ControlH ler's Office in Genesee County. and having obtained a permanent ELIZABETH DINSHAW v. ARVAND M. DINSHAW [ERADI, J.) 179 immigration Visa. A male child, Dustan, was born to the couple on A August 30, 1978 in Rochester, Michigan, United States of America where they were having their' marital home. Unfortunately, differences arose between the two spouses late in the year 1980 and on December 23, 1980, the petitioner along with her son took up separate residence in a women's shelter in Saginaw, Michigan. She filed a petition for divorce on January 2, 1981 in the Circuit Court for the County of Saginaw, Michigan. By a decree dated April B l 23, 1982, the Circuit Court held that it had been established that there ·.~ - r - had been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent that ·the objects of matrimony had been des!royed and there remained no reasonable likelihood that the marriage could be preserved and hence it declared the marriage as dissolved and granted a divorce to the petitioner as prayed for. By the same decree, it was directed that the petitioner shall have the care, custody and control of the minor child of D the parties until he reaches the age of 18 years or until the further orders of that Court. The first respondent, the father was given visi•tation rights by the decree and it was provided that he sha.ll 'have visitation with the minor child from approxim~tely 5 P.M. to 8 P.M. on the Wednesday of every week during which he does not have a weekend visitation. It was further ordered that the father shall have visitation with the minor child on alternate weekends from 6 P.M. on Friday until the following Monday morning when he should return the child to · his day care eentre. On the subject of travel with the minor child io any · E place outside the United States, it was specifically directed in the decree as follows:- "''IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT should the Defendant ARV AND M. DINSHAW, wish to travel with the minor child outside the territorial limits of the United States, he shall bring a petition before this Court. setting forth the conditions under which he intends iO leave the country with the minor child. The court shall then make a determination as to whether such travel is in the best interests of the minor child, and what conditions shall be setforth to ensure the child's return." Taking advantage of the weekend visitation rights granted to him by the above decree, the first respondent picked up Dustan from his school on January to, 1986 and secretly left the United States of America for India on January 11, 1986. at about 8.30 in the night. He F G H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R. A had not intimated the Court about his intention to take the child out of its jurisdiction and outside country nor had he given the slightest indication to the petitioner about.his intention to leave the United States of America permanently for India. It may be stated that immediately before leaving for India, the first respondent had sold away the imB movable property consisting of a house and its premises owned by him in Seymour, Lindau, Michigan, where he had been residing and it was only from the Airport that he posted a letter tendering his resigation from his job as Accountant in the Country. In this context it is significant to recall that the decree of the Circuit Court contained the following directions: c D "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant shall notify the Office of the Friend of the Court promptly concerning any changes in his address. The Court further finds that the Defendant is presently residing at 14155 Seymour, Lindan, Michigan." It was only late in the day on Monday, January l3, 1986 that the petitioner came to know that the minor child, Dustari had not been returned to the day care centre by the first respondent. She immediately moved the Michigan Circuit Court complaining against the violation by the first respondent of the terms of its decree. A warrant E of arrest was issued by the Michigan Circuit Court against the first respondent on January 16, 1986 on the ground of unlawful taking and retaining the child outside the State. This was later followed by the issue of a Federal warrant of arrest against the first respondent on the ··--r January 28, 1986 on the grdund or unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. Since the first respondent had already come over to India with the 1 F minor child, these warrants could not be executed in .the United States. The first respondent has his ancestral home in Pune where his parents are residing. The petitioner made frantic efforts through American Consulate General at Bombay to trace out the whereabouts · of Dustan. She received a reply that the Consular Officer. American Consulate General, Bombay travelled to Pune on Friday. March 7, G 1986 and though she was able to visit the residence of the first respondent's parents and she spoke with them. the minor child, Dustan was not present there and the grand-parents reportedJhat Dustan and his father had gone North, possible, to Kashmir and that they were not aware of the exact whereabouts of Dustan and the .first respondent. The petitioner finding herself totally helpless to recover back the H custody of her minor child, whom she had brought up for more than 7 f ELIZABETII DINSHAW v. ARVAND M. DINSHAW [ERADI, J.] 181" years, thereafter arranged to have this petition filed in this Court seeking the issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produee in Court her minor child, Dustan and to handover his custody to her as the person entitled to his custody under the order of a competent foreign Court. In response to the notice issued by this Court directing production of the child before the Court, the first respondent appeared and produced the child in Court. He has filed a counter-affidavit but signil ficantly there is absolutely no satisfactory explanation given there for ·rnis conduct in abducting the child from America without seeking permission of the Court in that country of which the minor child was ward. His only explanation is that his father was seriously ill and he wanted that his father in his ailing condition to see Dustan. He has further stated that his son Dustan has told him on an enquiry that he would prefer to stay with him in Pune and hence he had got Dustan admitted in St. Helena's School in Standard III. According to him he had not deliberately done anything wrong in bringing Dustan with him from the United States and that now the minor child is well-settled here in India and it will be in the interest of the child that he should be allowed to ~eside with him in India as per the child's desire. The eonduct of the first respondent in taking the child from the y custody of the perspn to whom it had been entrusted by the Court was undoubtedly most repprehensible. The explanation sought to be given by him namely, his father's illness, is far fr.om convincing and does not in any way justify such gross viola_tion and contempt of the order of the Circu::::::~: ~ic::::i.on arises before C~urt pertaining to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of parties but on tl)e sole and predominant ' criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor. We have twice interviewed Dustan in our Chambers and talked with him. We found him to be too tender in age and totally immature to be able to form any iitdependent opinion of his own as to which parent he should stay with. The child is an American citizen. Excepting for the last few months that have elapsed since his being brought to . .).... India by the process of illegal abduction by the father, he has spent the rest of his life in the United States of America and he was doing well in school there. In our considered opinion it will be in the best interests and welfare of Dustan that he should go back to the United States of America apd continue his education there under the custody and guarA B c D E F G H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C.R. A dianship of the mother to whoin such custody and guardianship have > been entrusted by a competent Court in that country. We are also satisfied that the petitioner who is the mother, is full of genuine love and affection for the child and she can be safely trusted to lookafter him, ed)lcate him and attend in every possible way to his proper upB bringing. The child has not taken root in this country and he is still accustomed and acclimatized to the conditions and environments obtaining in the place of his origin in the United States of America. r The child's presence in India is the result of an illegal act of abduction and the father who is guilty of the said act cannot claim any advantage by stating that he has already put the child to some school in Pune. The-1· eonduct of the father has not been such as to inspire confidence in us C that he is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the custody and guardianship of the child for the present. In Re. H. (infants) [1966] l All E.R. 886, the Court of Appeal in England had occasion to consider a somewhat similar question. That D case concerned the abduction to England of two minor boys who were American citizens. The father was a natural-born American citizen and the mother, though of Scottish origin, had been resident for 20 years in the United States of America. They were divorced in 1953 by a decr'ee in Mexico, which embodied provisions entrusting the custody of the two boys to the mother with liberal access to the father. By an E amendment made in that order in December, 1964, a provisions was ·, incorporated that the boys should reside at all times in the State of New York and should at all times be under the control and jurisdiction of the State of New York. In March, 1965, the mother removed the boys to England, without having obtained the approval of the New York court, and without having consulted the father; she purchased a1 F house in England with the intention of remaining there permanently and of cutting off all contacts with the father. She ignored an order made in June, 1965, by the Supreme Court of New York State to return the boys there. On a motion on notice given by the father in the · Chancery Division of the Court in England, the trial judge Cross, J. directed that since the children were American children and the G American Court was the proper Court to decide the issue of custody, and as it was the duty of courts in all countries to see that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of their country did not gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing, the Court without going into the ~ merits of the question as to where and with whom the children should live, would order that the childfen should go back to America. In the H appeal filed against the said judgment in the Court of Appeal, Willmer , om~~ D~• •. Am~ M. ""lliAW •AAm. ;I 183 , L.J. while dismissing the appeal extracted with approval the following A passage from the judgment of Cross, J. :- ( ~ ' , ' ' r .. "The sudden and unauthorised removal of children from one country to another is far too frequent nowadays, and as it seems to me, it is the duty of all courts in all countries to do all they can to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain an advantage RY his wrongdoing. The Courts in all countries ought, as I see it, to be careful nono do anything to encourage this tedency. This substitution of self-help for due process of law in this field can only harm the interests of wards generally, and a judge should, as I see it, pay regard to the orders of the proper foreign Court unless he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt thatto do so would inflict serious harm on the child." With respect we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid enunciation of the principles of .law to be applied by the Courts iq situations such as this. As already observed by us, quite independently of this consideration we have come to the firm conclusion that it will be in the best interests of the minor child that he should go back with his mother to the_ United States of America and continue there as a ward of the concerned Court having jurisdiction in the State of Michigan. The first respondent has tendered before this Court in an affidavit filed by him an unconditional apology for having illegally brought Dustan over to India from the United States in violation of the order of the competent Court in that country. The proper step to be taken by him is to tender such an apology to the Court· whose order he has violated. It was brought to our notice that by an order passed by the Circuit Court, Saginaw, Michigan on February 11, 1'186, the first respondent has been found to be in contempt of that Court for violation of its order and the Court has consequently termfrtated the visitation rights which had been conferred on the first respondent by the decree dated April 23, 1982. It will be open to the first respondner would also extend her cooperation for the withdrawal of-v the warrants of arrest outstanding against the .first respondent in case c he approaches her with such a request. D For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions issued by o~ order dated June 11, 1986. A.P.J. Petition disposed of. /