JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner herein is original defendant; whereas respondent is original plaintiff before the Family Court at Ahmedabad in Family Suit No. 1546 of 2015. They are referred in the same capacity herein also. 2. The petitioner - defendant has challenged the order dated 21.10.2015 by the Family Court, Ahmedabad below Exh. 5 in such Family Suit No. 1546 of 2015. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 28.8.2015 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs under the provisions of Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 9 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 praying following reliefs in paragraph 35 of the suit:- "a) The Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff, being the natural guardian of the minor Vihaan Binaykia, is entitled to, and has the legal right, power and authority, to retain the custody of the minor Vihaan Binaykia and that the respondent is not entitled to remove minor Vihaan Binaykia from the custody of the plaintiff. b) The Honourable Court be pleased to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with, or removing minor Vihaan Binaykia from the custody of the plaintiff. c) The Honourable Court be pleased to grant a mandatory injunction that the defendant do sign the necessary applications/papers/documents for renewal of the passport of minor Vihaan Binaykia and for submitting and processing the application of minor Vihaan Binaykia for acquiring OCI Card (Overseas Citizen of India Card) to the competent authorities. d) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and appropriate be granted. e) Costs of the suit be awarded." 3. In such suit, plaintiff has also preferred an application for interim relief at Exh. 5, order below which is under challenge at present, wherein plaintiff has prayed as under:-- "a) During the pendency and final disposal of the family suit, the Honourable Court be pleased to direct the defendant to refrain from interfering with, or removing minor Vihaan Binaykia from, the custody of the plaintiff. 5, order below which is under challenge at present, wherein plaintiff has prayed as under:-- "a) During the pendency and final disposal of the family suit, the Honourable Court be pleased to direct the defendant to refrain from interfering with, or removing minor Vihaan Binaykia from, the custody of the plaintiff. b) During the pendency and final disposal of the family suit, the Honourable Court be pleased to grant a mandatory injunction that the defendant do sign the necessary applications/papers/documents for renewal of the passport of minor Vihaan Binaykia and for submitting and processing the application of minor Vihaan Binaykia for acquiring OCI Card (Overseas Citizen of India Card) to the competent authorities. c) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and appropriate be granted. d) Costs of the suit be awarded." 4. The chronology of events amongst the parties and dispute between them is very well averred in the pleadings, both before the trial Court as well as before this Court as well as in the synopsis with the petition and therefore, except to recollect necessary information at relevant time, I do not wish to discuss or reproduce all such factual details at present for the simple reason that present petition is against the interim order and main challenge by the defendant - plaintiff is regarding jurisdiction of the Courts of India. Therefore, relevant details would be recalled while discussing the issue of jurisdiction. Similarly, the development from the date of filing the suit i.e. 28.8.2015 till date will be taken care of with the relevant discussion only. 5. The basic grievance of the defendant is pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in India considering the fact that parties to the suit are otherwise residents of United States of America (U.S.A.) and that plaintiff has brought the child to India only in the month of August, 2015, and immediately filed such suit and thereby, it is alleged that this is nothing, but forum shopping to select the jurisdiction of Indian Court and therefore, when parties were residing in U.S.A. for long time and when minor is citizen of U.S.A., it is submitted that the Courts in India should not have exercised their powers, but should have declined to entertain such litigation or to grant any relief in favour of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, with reference of a senior advocate of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is submitted that it was repeatedly disclosed by eminent lawyers and jurists that if litigation is started in India, then, it would never come to an end and therefore, plaintiff has selected the jurisdiction of Indian Court. However, the Court has to decide the matter on its own merits irrespective of views expressed by anybody in the world and therefore, there is no substance in any such arguments. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that for delay in judicial proceedings, there are several reasons and for such delay, practically, one and all are responsible and not the system alone. It is also to be kept in mind that we have to decide the matter on its own merits and that too within the periphery of law and rules applicable to each case and that the basic concept of our jurisprudence is to the effect that everybody must be heard and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent their case. If there is delay in such process, it is attributed to one and all and therefore, it cannot be an argument that Indian Courts are slow and therefore, plaintiff has selected the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction of either Indian Court or American Court is to be considered solely on the basis of facts and circumstances and law applicable to the case, and not on basis of such views. 6. So far as jurisdiction of any Court is concerned, the basic principle is based upon the factual details that where the cause of action arises, the nature of cause of action and available remedy. Whereas, so far as personal laws are concerned, in some cases, religion, provisions of personal law and citizenship of the parties may be the material factor. 7. With this background, now, if we examine the dispute arising in this case, it becomes clear that this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 21.10.2015 by the Family Court, Ahmedabad, whereby Family Court has while allowing the application at Exh. 5 partly, ordered that "pending the petition and final hearing of this matter, the defendant is hereby ordered to refrain from interfering with, or removing minor child from the custody of the plaintiff. 5 partly, ordered that "pending the petition and final hearing of this matter, the defendant is hereby ordered to refrain from interfering with, or removing minor child from the custody of the plaintiff. However, it is open for the defendant to apply for visitation rights of the minor child." Whereas, the prayer of mandatory injunction as per the paragraph 35(b) of Exh. 5 application, which is quoted herein above is rejected at such interim stage. Now, defendant is claiming that such order is illegal because the Family Court, Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. 8. Before appreciating the submission by the defendant - mother, it is now necessary to recollect here that there is no dispute between the parties that marriage was registered on 5.12.2008 when respondent - husband was working in U.S.A.; whereas it is contended in paragraph 2.1. that petitioner and respondent got married as per Hindu rites and rituals on 20.4.2009 in Ahmedabad. Though this may not be the material issue at this stage, it is required to scrutinize that whether marriage can be registered well before getting married as per Hindu rites and rituals or not. It is also not disputed fact that after the marriage, both the parties have resided in U.S.A. and they have applied for U.S. Citizenship. Meanwhile, on 17.1.2011, a baby boy was born out of their wedlock, who is named "Vihaan" and both the parties i.e. parents of Vihaan are at present fighting for his custody in the present case. It seems that thereafter, everything was not usual and proper between them and there are several unhappy incidents in their life and they were probably not in good terms and therefore, there are several allegations by both of them against each other. Though such allegations may be considered to determine as to who is in a better position to continue with the custody of the minor son for his betterment, all such negative issues between the parties is not the subject matter of the present litigation and therefore, when it is well described in the pleadings, except to refer such details while determining particular issue, its reproduction is avoided. Therefore, if we come to the point or issue raised at present, it starts only from 12.8.2015 when plaintiff has moved to India with his minor son. Therefore, if we come to the point or issue raised at present, it starts only from 12.8.2015 when plaintiff has moved to India with his minor son. At that time, it seems that parties were not in good terms as husband and wife and therefore, plaintiff - husband has to convey to the defendant - wife that "Dad has suddenly fallen ill and needs to be hospitalized. Vihaan and I are heading to India - will connect once we reach" by e-mail message. The reason pleaded for such message is to the effect that defendant - wife is pursuing full time course and may not be available either on phone or at home so that she may be aware about movement of her husband and minor son. 9. There is another e-mail dated 15.8.2015 by the plaintiff - husband to the defendant - wife stating that "As you are aware, I had to come urgently to India as my dad was unwell. After speaking with the doctors and evaluating the situation here, I need to stay in India to take care of my parents. It is my responsibility to care for them. Obviously, you can come here and we will move into a separate apartment". 10. In response to such communication, the defendant - wife has responded on 17.8.2015 and 18.8.2015 as under:- "- Abhi can u please call me. - Abhi, I am ready to give this relationship a last shot. You need to come here and let good sense prevail into you for Vihu. We need to start afresh. As far as me coming to India, that is not happening. I know my options here if you don't get Vihaan so please think from your heart and not what others have been telling you. - Trust me and you don't have to be scared after what you have done. Just be sorry and come back. - Abhi every communication I am trying to make with you, you are cutting me off. What are you achieving with that. Anyways I want to know when are you planning to get Vihaan back. I really need you to bring him back as soon as possible, don't test a mother. I will really have to take a legal action then. Please bring him back and resolve our issues for once and all whether being together or separate." 11. Anyways I want to know when are you planning to get Vihaan back. I really need you to bring him back as soon as possible, don't test a mother. I will really have to take a legal action then. Please bring him back and resolve our issues for once and all whether being together or separate." 11. The response to such e-mail messages by the plaintiff - father on 17.8.2015 is quite material to be recollected here, copy of which is at Annexure - N at page 172 wherein plaintiff - husband, father of the minor has addressed his wife defendant - mother as under:- "Swati, As I have told you multiple times, I had to urgently leave for India because I got the message that my father was very sick, I had to take Vihaan with me because you were busy in your school and there was no one to care for him - after all I have been the one caring for Vihaan single handedly for a long time, I have also repeatedly requested that you come here, and I have offered to get a separate apartment for us because you do not like any of my folks. But even today, you are not exhibiting any responsibility towards either Vihaan or myself, which is in line with your past behavior as well. Given the current situation with me having to stay in India to care for my father, and me being the sole earning member of the family, it will be extremely difficult to continue our expenses in the US (rent etc.) I have requested you many times to come here to India and stay with me in a separate apartment. But you have not responded. From my side, I will be terminating the apartment lease by the end of the month, so you should plan to be here before then, I will send you the ticket for the day you think you can come here, I hope you understand and that we don't have the same conversation repeatedly, Abhi." 12. Therefore, considering the fact that the minor has been brought to India by the father on 12.8.2015, the development and communication between the parties immediately thereafter, is of utmost importance to visualise the real issues between the parties and so also for deciding the fate of present litigation, including the jurisdictional issue of particular Court. Therefore, considering the fact that the minor has been brought to India by the father on 12.8.2015, the development and communication between the parties immediately thereafter, is of utmost importance to visualise the real issues between the parties and so also for deciding the fate of present litigation, including the jurisdictional issue of particular Court. The bare perusal of above communication makes it clear that while leaving U.S.A. for India, plaintiff has shown a reason that his father of the minor has suddenly fallen ill. For staying in India again plaintiff - father has conveyed the defendant - mother of the minor, that he has to come to India urgently as his father was unwell and considering the situation, after speaking with the Doctors, he needs to stay in India to take care of his parents, considering it as his responsibility and therefore, he has invited the defendant - wife to come to India and in that case, plaintiff - husband would move into a separate apartment with his wife and thereby he will not press her to stay with her in-laws being parents of plaintiff - husband. It is categorically disclosed that defendant - mother has an issue to stay with her in-laws even after knowing the fact that her father-in-law is hospitalized. The response of the defendant - wife is utter surprising and disclosing her nature and intentions when she stated in her e-mails that as far as coming to India is concerned, that is not happening, thereby, she has refused to come to India even if she has the option to stay in a separate apartment with her husband, who is trying to take care of his hospitalized father. It is further stated by the wife that she is ready to give this relationship, "a last shot" and she knows her options and asked the husband to be sorry and to come back and that she will really take legal action if husband does not return back with minor Vihaan irrespective of the fact that father of the husband being father-in-law of the wife is sick and hospitalized. At the end, she has specifically confirmed and dictated that bring Vihaan back and resolve the issues once and for all whether being together or separate. At the end, she has specifically confirmed and dictated that bring Vihaan back and resolve the issues once and for all whether being together or separate. So, she has already disclosed that husband should go back with minor child leaving his father in hospital without any support from his son and he should resolve the dispute where wife may opt to be separated. 13. The response of the husband is obvious as reproduced herein above in the form of his e-mail dated 17.8.2015 wherein he has explained his situation that how and why he has to stay in India and reconfirmed his words that if she is coming to India, they will stay in a separate apartment. 14. Meanwhile, considering the disclosure of the defendant - wife - mother in her e-mail dated 18.8.2015 that she may initiate legal action against the plaintiff - husband - father; when plaintiff has decided to stay in India for a longer time, but apprehending that there may be issue regarding custody of the minor, plaintiff has initiated such Family Suit before Family Court, Ahmedabad on 28.8.2015 for the reliefs which are reproduced herein above. 15. It is categorically disclosed in the title of such suit that it is for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs under the provisions of Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 r/w. Section 9 and Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Therefore, plaintiff has submitted that the suit is not only under the Guardian and Wards Act and for appointment of a guardian, but basically, it is under the Family Courts Act to safeguard the custody of the minor by the legal guardian who is an Indian and a Hindu and therefore, Courts in India have jurisdiction. When defendant - wife is challenging the jurisdiction of Family Court in India on all counts, it would be appropriate to recollect the provisions of both the aforementioned Sections, which read as under: Family Courts Act, 1984 "7. When defendant - wife is challenging the jurisdiction of Family Court in India on all counts, it would be appropriate to recollect the provisions of both the aforementioned Sections, which read as under: Family Courts Act, 1984 "7. Jurisdiction-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall - a. have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and b. be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district Court or, as the case may be. such subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation -The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely: a. xxx; b. xxx; c. xxx; d. xxx; e. xxx; f. xxx; g. a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application (1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. (2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property. (3) If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction." 16. Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act enumerates powers of natural guardian and Section 13deals with welfare of minor which reads thus: "13. Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act enumerates powers of natural guardian and Section 13deals with welfare of minor which reads thus: "13. Welfare of minor to be paramount consideration.- (1) In the appointment of declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor." 17. If we analyse the above provisions, one thing is clear that in matters of custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the 'welfare of the minor' and not rights of the parents or relatives under a statute which is in force. The word "welfare" used in Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense." 18. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, reported in (2009)1 SCC 42 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that:- "51. The word "welfare" used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases." 19. If we peruse the bare provisions of above different statutes, prima facie it becomes clear that though there is a specific Act i.e. the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it is an enactment regarding the law relating to guardians and wards and Section 9 of such Act speaks about jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application, but it is mainly for the application with respect to the guardianship of a minor and not for the custody. Whereas according to the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property) is the father in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, and after him, the mother; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. Therefore, father is the natural guardian of a minor and it is only in his absence, when the mother becomes a natural guardian so far as Hindu minor is concerned and that so far as custody is concerned, mother is entitled to custody of the minor until minor completes the age of five years and thereafter the controlling consideration governing the custody of the children is the welfare of the children and not the right of the parents as confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India long back in the case between Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal reported in AIR 1973 SC 2090 equivalent citation (1973)1 SCC 840 . 20. Therefore, there are two different concepts (1) guardianship and (2) custody. The law is now well settled and clear that so far as guardianship of Hindu minor is concerned, the father is the natural guardian and therefore, his custody can never be considered as illegal or otherwise except in a case where minor has not completed the age of five years in which case, the custody should ordinarily be with the mother since mother may be in a better position to keep custody and take care of such kid as a minor child. Whereas, the controlling condition governing the custody of the children is the welfare of the child and not the right of the parents. 21. It is not a disputed fact that in the present case, the ward being minor Vihaan, is a Hindu minor irrespective of his citizenship being that of U.S.A. Therefore, now, what is required to be considered for determining custody of the child is his welfare and in this case even by imagination it cannot be said that a Hindu male being natural guardian of his minor son is not entitled to keep his minor with him wherever he stays. Therefore, to compel him to move abroad; and that too at the behest and wishes of mother under threat of taking of legal action if the father does not move to such foreign country with the minor leaving his own parents without his support, more particularly when they are sick, hospitalized and require support of his son, more particularly in absence of any evidence much less even pleadings to confirm that defendant - mother is able to take care of the minor when she has no earnings as she is studying and/or that American Court is ready and willing to upkeep the welfare of the minor, as the minor is yet not declared as a ward of U.S. Court; is certainly unwarranted. 22. Whereas the major emphasis by the defendant is upon the reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which will be taken into consideration herein after, wherein there is a presumption that such parties are selecting Indian Courts and it amounts to forum shopping and therefore, Indian Courts have no jurisdiction, more particularly, when child was born and brought-up in another country. With due respect, all such judgments need to be scrutinized considering the facts and circumstances of each such case and to realise that what is the dictum of the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the issue so as to ascertain that whether it is solely based on law point or also on facts and circumstances emerging before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, considering the fact that practically, when custody of minor is to be decided amongst the litigants being real parents or between any other persons, as recorded herein above, the paramount consideration would be the welfare of the children and not the right of the parties. It would not be proper to consider that welfare of the children is always better in foreign countries like U.S.A. and not with the parent, even if he/she is in a better position to raise and upbring the child in India. 23. Therefore, the discussion herein above makes it clear that this Court has to verify that whether Indian Court has jurisdiction or not, but keeping in mind that the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. 23. Therefore, the discussion herein above makes it clear that this Court has to verify that whether Indian Court has jurisdiction or not, but keeping in mind that the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. It cannot be ignored that if natural guardian is residing in India and if he has a right to have the guardianship so also the custody, then, only because the child was born in foreign country, may not be the sole ground to direct such parent to let go the custody of the child without considering the welfare of the child that whether it would be better with some one in foreign country. It cannot be presumed that foreign countries are in a better position to upkeep the children only because of their physical infrastructure, which may be better than India because by all means, now, it is accepted position throughout the world that irrespective of better physical infrastructure, the Indian culture is certainly good for better development of a human-being and therefore, foreign countries are now adopting Indian culture in their routine life viz. Yoga, Meditation, Non-violence, Abandoning non-vegetarian food etc. One may like it or not, the fact remains that the factual details, which are considered herein after, go to show that the plaintiff - father is in a better position to upkeep the betterment of the child not only because he is a natural guardian, but on all other counts also. This is in addition to the basic fact that being a natural guardian, if father has decided to stay in India, he has all the liberty and right to keep the minor with him in India and for that purpose, it cannot be said that a natural legal guardian of a Hindu minor is not entitled to the custody of minor only because the minor is not an Indian citizen, more particularly when such natural guardian is able to upkeep the child and ensure his welfare. 24. Before final determination, we have consider the rival submissions. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. 24. Before final determination, we have consider the rival submissions. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Percy Kavina for the defendant has submitted as under:- "24.1 The defendant has not filed reply either to the suit or the injunction application before the Family Court since the issue raised by the defendant is regarding jurisdiction of the Court itself and therefore, in this petition also, the main issue raised by the defendant is regarding jurisdiction of Family Court, Ahmedabad in particular and by and large Courts in India. To emphasize such issue, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina has raised two major points viz. (1) Merit is one part, but jurisdiction is main issue and if it is held that Courts in India do not have jurisdiction to entertain such litigation, then, merits are not to be looked into; and (2) Jurisdiction can be decided even without reply. 24.2 It is reconfirmed by Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina that next date of hearing before the trial Court is fixed as 10.3.2016 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, but the reply to the suit is yet not filed by the defendant - petitioner. 24.3 Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina has relied upon contentions in the suit and application for interim relief, more particularly paragraphs 25, 27, 29 and 34 of interim application so also paragraph 34 of the suit emphasizing that the cause of action for filing the suit did not arise at Ahmedabad, contending that the defendant permanently shifted to U.S.A. with the plaintiff in the year 2009 though their marriage was registered at Ahmedabad, and that this is nothing but choosing of selective jurisdiction of Indian Court by the plaintiff inasmuch as no cause of action whatsoever has arisen within the jurisdiction of Court at Ahmedabad and since parties have already shifted and settled in U.S.A. in the year 2009 itself and that minor Vihaan was born in U.S.A. and thereby, he is a citizen of U.S.A. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has tried to invoke the jurisdiction of Indian Court by stating that the plaintiff was required to visit India for his personal work and wanted to bring minor Vihaan with him since the defendant was busy in pursuing her course. So far as plea of the plaintiff regarding his desire to stay in India is concerned, it is contended that it is certainly an afterthought, since it is categorically pleaded in the application for interim relief that the defendant refused to allow to bring minor Vihaan with him and refused to sign necessary papers for renewal of Vihaan's passport and to acquire Overseas Citizen of India card for minor Vihaan and therefore, it seems that plaintiff has already decided well in advance before leaving U.S.A. to leave U.S.A. permanently and to that extent, petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. It is further contended that practically this seems to be a dispute between the husband and wife where minor is unnecessarily being dragged and therefore, though there is cheap character assassination of the defendant by the plaintiff, all such details are not relevant so far as custody of the minor is concerned and therefore, defendant does not want to plead and prove that plaintiff's pleadings are not correct. However, it is also contended that though plaintiff is talking about some threats by the defendant, nature of such threats has not been disclosed and that before plaintiff has left U.S.A., the minor Vihaan was in joint custody of the parties and therefore, deprivation of custody of mother by picking up the child from school and then to come to India, is nothing but abduction of child and therefore, Indian Courts have no jurisdiction. 24.4 It is further contended that perusal of communication between the parties makes it clear that intention to permanently settle in India was not disclosed while leaving U.S.A. and that treatment certificate issued by the Doctor is quite surprising when he certifies that Mr. Madanlal Binakiya, father of the plaintiff is critically ill, having cardiac problem and is hospitalized under his care in I.C.U and he needs a close family member for his case. Such certificate dated 11.8.2015 is on page 494 of the petition. However, I do not find anything negative in such certificate when Doctor says that for a patient in I.C.U., he needs support of some family member. Such certificate dated 11.8.2015 is on page 494 of the petition. However, I do not find anything negative in such certificate when Doctor says that for a patient in I.C.U., he needs support of some family member. 24.5 It is also contended that the plaintiff is blowing both hot and cold at the same time, since at some point of time, it is contended by the plaintiff that it was his sudden decision to settle in India after reaching India and witnessing the difficulties of his father and at other point of time, even before reaching India, plaintiff has in categorical terms cleared his intention to leave U.S.A. permanently. To prove such submission, defendant is relying upon letter dated 12.8.2015 by the U.S. Postal services confirming the change of address of the plaintiff. However, perusal of such document on page 164 makes it clear that in fact, U.S. Postal Service had asked to notify new address for correspondence by the plaintiff and it nowhere suggests that petitioner has disclosed that he is shifting to India or that his posts are to be forwarded to any address in India. Unfortunately, all such things are not much material, but when the matter is argued at such length, non-disclosure of all such arguments may result into a ground for challenging such order and hence, even though the order will become bulky, the Court has to record all such submissions and has to appreciate it with reference to the issues on hand. 24.6 It is further submitted that contention in paragraph 27 of the interim application is contrary to paragraph 25 of the same application. However, I do not intend to interpret all such facts in absence of any specific pleading or reply by the defendant, till date. 24.7 Thereafter, learned Sr. Counsel for the defendant has come on the merits and legal issues and contended that chance visit to India will not render jurisdiction to Indian Courts. To emphasize such submission, learned Sr. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon provision of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which is reproduced herein above. 24.7 Thereafter, learned Sr. Counsel for the defendant has come on the merits and legal issues and contended that chance visit to India will not render jurisdiction to Indian Courts. To emphasize such submission, learned Sr. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon provision of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which is reproduced herein above. The basic emphasis is on the terminology "ordinarily resides" as used in Section 9of the said Act when it is stated that if the application is with respect to the guardianship of a person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Therefore, before interpreting such terminology for determining jurisdiction, it cannot be ignored that considering such provision, it becomes clear that the jurisdiction is prescribed for the application with respect to the guardianship of a person of a minor and not for custody simplicitor. Therefore, prima facie and basically, Section 9 would be applicable only when application is for appointment of a guardian of a ward and not for custody simplicitor. Therefore, in my humble opinion, even the terminology "ordinarily resides", is not much material in the present case when present suit is not for appointment of a guardian, but it is for restraining the defendant from disturbing the custody of the minor from his natural and legal guardian. If we peruse Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act, it becomes clear and obvious that jurisdiction is not fixed and limited with reference to ordinary residence of the minor, but it is wide enough inasmuch as the District Court having jurisdiction where the properties of the minor is situated would also have jurisdiction to decide the guardianship of the property of the minor and if such application is filed before the Court other than the Court having jurisdiction as aforesaid, then, the Court may return the application if in its opinion, such application needs to be disposed of more justly or conveniently by Court having jurisdiction as aforesaid. Therefore, practically, such provisions are pari materia with the provisions of Order 7 Rule10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 24.8 Inspite of the above clear position, it is contended by the learned Sr. Therefore, practically, such provisions are pari materia with the provisions of Order 7 Rule10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 24.8 Inspite of the above clear position, it is contended by the learned Sr. Counsel for the defendant that when cause-title of the plaint is disclosing provisions of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, the plaintiff has not filed an application as provided u/s. 10 of the same Act, which provides for confirmation of such application and manner of filing application wherein as per Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1), with name, sex, religion and date of birth of the minor, the applicant has to disclose his ordinary residence also in addition to information as required to be disclosed as provided in Clause (b) of (l). It is therefore contended that when basic requirement is not fulfilled, the application is not maintainable at all. 24.9 In addition to above-referred factual and legal submissions, supported with citations of some previous decisions, now defendant has come forward with some new story inasmuch as it seems that such fact was not properly disclosed, pleaded and proved even by prima facie evidence before the trial Court. Thereby, defendant is relying upon Annexure-II at page 291 and Temporary Emergency Court order dated 17.9.1995 in case No. 615FL015291 by the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, which is certainly after orders dated 3.9.2015 and 11.9.2015 by this Court. It seems that such orders of the Superior Courts of California were not properly produced and proved even as a prima facie evidence and relying upon such orders, now, it is contended that when California Court has passed an order, the Indian Court does not have jurisdiction. It is obvious that when uncertified simple xerox copies are filed without being supported by pleadings or even simple affidavit that such xerox copies are of original documents, it may not be relied upon blindly. Therefore, what is required to be seen by this Court is to the limited extent i.e.- a. Whether the child is living in India with the family? b. Whether such place of residence is permanent or for transient period only? c. Whether domicile of such place by the minor is intentional or accidental or incidental only? Therefore, what is required to be seen by this Court is to the limited extent i.e.- a. Whether the child is living in India with the family? b. Whether such place of residence is permanent or for transient period only? c. Whether domicile of such place by the minor is intentional or accidental or incidental only? To substantiate his argument that this Court has no jurisdiction, it is lastly submitted that plaintiff has pleaded and admitted that they settled in U.S.A. on their own and that both of them have applied for U.S. Citizenship and that minor was born in U.S.A. and thereby, he is U.S. Citizen and length of their stay in U.S.A. is quite long. 24.10 Few more submissions have been put forth by Mr. Kavina, learned Sr. Counsel in reply to the submissions by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for the respondent - plaintiff, which would be recorded herein after, but for the reasons recorded after considering all such submissions, it becomes clear that practically there is no substance in the petition, which is mainly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate Courts and therefore, unless there is material irregularity and illegality in the impugned order, which is otherwise interim in nature, would be difficult for this Court to interfere with any such order, more particularly in absence of proper pleadings and reply before the trial Court by the present petitioner inasmuch as in that case, the trial Court does not have proper opportunity to decide the issue as pleaded by the defendant - petitioner herein and thereby under inherent and extra- ordinary powers, though the High Court and/or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India can set-aside the verdict of the trial Court, there is no reason to interfere with the order when defendant in the suit has not come forward with specific plea in the form of reply and by producing all relevant documents on record, which allows the plaintiff to respond in his counter reply." 25. As against that, learned senior counsel Mr. As against that, learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for the respondent has submitted as under:- "25.1 So far as jurisdiction is concerned, it is submitted that jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts and that jurisdiction cannot be decided based upon the defence version, but it is to be primarily decided based on pleadings by the plaintiff and that when plaintiff has categorically disclosed in the plaint and application for interim relief that how and why suit is preferred before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, unless defendant negatives these facts and circumstances for deciding such issue of jurisdiction, in absence of relevant information on record, it cannot be held that Family Court, Ahmedabad does not have jurisdiction at all. 25.2 It is further submitted that the issue of jurisdiction is to be considered not with reference to a specific Act, but considering the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure also. The Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7(1)(g) of which is reproduced herein above, makes it clear that when a suit is in relation to the custody of the minor, then, Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. There is no doubt that such proposition is practically with reference to the jurisdiction of District Court in certain places and Family Courts at given place where Family Courts are established. However, so far as custody of the minor is concerned, for one or another reason when minor is within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Ahmedabad, it is clear and certain that the provisions of Family Courts Act read with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code would apply to determine the territorial jurisdiction. So far as other legal issues are concerned, the same are discussed herein after while discussing the merits of the case. 25.3 So far as custody of the minor is concerned, it is submitted that there is a need of conducting inquiry for custody, which may either be summary or full and elaborate so as to examine paramount consideration for granting custody of minor i.e. welfare of the child. 25.3 So far as custody of the minor is concerned, it is submitted that there is a need of conducting inquiry for custody, which may either be summary or full and elaborate so as to examine paramount consideration for granting custody of minor i.e. welfare of the child. It is further submitted that till the plaintiff has filed a petition for custody, no proceedings had been initiated by the defendant and therefore, when plaintiff has already invoked the jurisdiction of Indian Courts so as to safeguard the welfare of the child and to avoid the disturbance of his custody, now, it is necessary to first have requisite inquiry regarding welfare of the child being of paramount consideration and therefore, when trial Court has granted interim custody pendente lite in the family suit, it would not be appropriate for this Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction differently, more particularly in absence of pleadings or objections of dispute about jurisdiction on record of the trial Court except for oral argument before the trial Court that trial Court being Family Court, Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction. 25.4 The plaintiff has referred the prayers in the main petition and contended that there cannot be a writ of mandamus since it does not lie against the Family Court, Ahmedabad and that similarly there cannot be an order by this Court that the Courts in U.S.A. have sole jurisdiction to decide the issue of sole custody of minor child. It is also contended that there is no question of executing the order dated 17.9.2015 passed by the Judge of the Superior Court, California in such petition under Article 227 wherein the basic challenge and prayer is to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No. 1546 of 2015. 25.5 It is further contended that the plaintiff has never prayed for appointment of a guardian in his suit, but such suit is mainly to safeguard the custody of the minor and therefore, it certainly falls only within the purview of Family Courts Act, more particularly Section 7(1)(g) of the said Act and therefore, only Family Court, Ahmedabad has jurisdiction, considering the fact that at present minor is within the territorial jurisdiction of Family Court at Ahmedabad. 25.6 It is further contended that this is not a case of parental abduction and therefore, the phrase 'ordinarily resides' has no consequence. It is further contended that the communication by the husband cannot be read separately in one line, but a cogent consideration of the entire situation makes it clear that the plaintiff was keen to shift to India since last four years and to stay with his family and settle in his native place and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has abducted the child to India and thereby, there is forum shopping to select the jurisdiction of Indian Courts. 25.7 Plaintiff has referred several dates, which are crucial to determine the issues between the parties and therefore, they are listed herein under:- Date Particulars 12.08.2015 Plaintiff came to India with minor Vihaan to look after his sick father, who is hospitalized and kept in ICU 28.8.2015 Plaintiff has filed Family Suit No. 1546 of 2015 to safeguard the custody of minor before the Family Court, Ahmedabad. 3.9.2015 Plaintiff has moved the Gujarat High Court to safeguard the custody of the minor by filing Special Civil Application No. 14299 of 2015, wherein the High Court has directed to maintain status-up of the custody of the minor. 4.9.2015 Such order of status-quo was served upon the defendant – wife. 11.9.2015 High Court has directed the Family Court to expedite the hearing of the interim application and to decide it within four weeks with several directions extending support to defendant wife to participate in such proceedings before the Family Court. 11.9.2015 Defendant – wife has lodged the complaint before the Superior Court of California and filed a declaration in support of ex parte application for orders. It is submitted that there are several incorrect statements in such application, which shall be taken care of herein after. 15.9.2015 The Superior Court of California has issued notice  with summons. 16.9.2015 The defendant – wife has filed declaration before the Superior Court of California. 16.9.2015 The Superior Court of California has passed order directing the plaintiff to appear in Court. 17.9.2015 The Superior Court of California has passed temporary Court’s order. 07.10.2015 Defendant appeared before the Family Court at Ahmedabad. 21.10.2015 Impugned order by the Family Court. 25.8 Therefore, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. 16.9.2015 The Superior Court of California has passed order directing the plaintiff to appear in Court. 17.9.2015 The Superior Court of California has passed temporary Court’s order. 07.10.2015 Defendant appeared before the Family Court at Ahmedabad. 21.10.2015 Impugned order by the Family Court. 25.8 Therefore, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Joshi has emphasized that in fact the first order dated 3.9.2015 of status-quo regarding custody of the minor, is well in prior to the order dated 17.9.2015 passed by the Superior Court of California, which is prayed to be executed in the present petition without taking appropriate steps in accordance with law and that such facts would distinguish all other citations referred by the defendant - petitioner. 25.9 It is further contended that so far as merits of the case is concerned, there is nothing against the plaintiff - father to continue with the custody of the minor and that since the child is with the family of the plaintiff and is living in the environment of Indian culture where he has all his roots of his forefathers and that the father has stable and adequate means not only to maintain, but to upbring the child and that otherwise also there is no allegation against the father as against serious allegations against mother about her activities, attitude and behaviour etc. and that when mother is not qualified to support herself in U.S.A., there is no reason for her to stay in U.S.A. and to claim for custody of the child from his legal guardian being father." 26. Though generally submission of one party is to be recorded in sequence, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina has reserved his right to answer the submissions of other side in addition to his submission, which is already recorded herein, with few more contentions which are in addition to actual reply to the submissions by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Though generally submission of one party is to be recorded in sequence, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina has reserved his right to answer the submissions of other side in addition to his submission, which is already recorded herein, with few more contentions which are in addition to actual reply to the submissions by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi, such further submissions are summarised as under:-- "26.1 It is submitted that if provision of Family Courts Act and CPC is to be considered, then provision of Section 21 of the CPC also needs to be looked into, which provides that objection of jurisdiction needs to be taken up at the earliest possible and that in the present case, the defendant has already objected the territorial jurisdiction of Indian Courts and therefore, by all means, the issue of jurisdiction alone is to be looked into and that can certainly be taken care of even under the ambit of supervisory powers of this Court. 26.2 In addition to previous submissions, it is contended that as parties are residing in U.S.A. since 2009 and they are not divorced or separated and that Indian culture is not material, since in the family of plaintiff there are two deserted women and therefore, when there is a practice of keeping child in day care by majority of working people in both the countries, it cannot be said that disclosure by the wife to keep the child in day-care, if custody is given to her would go against her. It is further submitted that the basic issue is the most proximate contact with the minor and quality of stay and that practically there was no disclosure to settle in Ahmedabad at any point of time by the plaintiff until he moved suddenly to Ahmedabad with minor after intimating the defendant - mother. 26.3 The most relevant submission by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina is to the effect that the plaintiff is telling lie on several counts and it is high time to cross-examine him to prove his blunders and that 5 to 6 questions in cross-examination would reveal the entire truth before the Court. Thereby, practically, defendant - wife has admitted that there is a need of some inquiry by way of cross-examination of the parties. Thereby, practically, defendant - wife has admitted that there is a need of some inquiry by way of cross-examination of the parties. However, though filing or not filing written statement to the plaint may be the discretion of the defendant, the fact remains that defendant has not filed reply and now, they want to cross-examine the plaintiff to ascertain the veracity of his version, for which some inquiry certainly needs to be carried out and that is the outcome of the impugned order since it is interim and pendente lite only. 26.4 It is further submitted that though there is no suppression of any material fact by the defendant - wife before the Court in U.S.A., even if there is any suppression of fact, crucial issues are what is suppression of fact and whether Indian Court has jurisdiction to decide it, contending that even if there is suppression of fact, it is for the U.S. Court to decide that there is suppression of fact or not. 26.5 So far as the attitude of the plaintiff - husband is concerned, the defendant - wife is relying upon some print-out of screen shot of SMS conversations probably on mobile phone alleged to be between the husband and his friend, namely, Sanjiv Khanna, who is not a party in the litigation, which are annexed as Annexure-E with the petition, and probably it is for the first time disclosed before this Court. It seems that there are some comments from the husband against the wife in such communication, but in absence of cogent and proper evidence regarding veracity of such communication, the same cannot be relied upon as gospel truth. 26.6 It is ultimately contended by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina that though parental abduction may not be treated as a crime, abduction of a minor even by a parent would certainly restrict the jurisdiction of this Court, where the minor is taken by such abduction because jurisdiction should not be invested by abduction and that intimate contact theory is well approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and therefore, it is to be followed. However, there is no substance in such submission. 26.7 Therefore, lastly it is submitted that the Court has to consider that whether Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction on day one or not." 27. However, there is no substance in such submission. 26.7 Therefore, lastly it is submitted that the Court has to consider that whether Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction on day one or not." 27. Based upon above rival submissions, both the parties are relying upon different citations in their favour and claim that the present case should be governed by such decisions. However, it is settled legal position that any such cited case is to be examined in light of facts and circumstances of that particular case only and unless there is a specific judicial dictum confirming interpretation of particular provision of law in particular manner only and more particularly, when all such decisions are based upon facts and circumstances of each case before the concerned Court while delivering such decision, no such cited decisions can be blindly relied upon only by reading its head-notes. Therefore, since the question of custody of minor is concerned, all such judgments are required to be discussed with reference to its facts and circumstances so as to examine that whether any of such judgment has confirmed interpretation of provision of law applicable in such cases and are to be considered strictly in the same manner or not irrespective of considering the facts and circumstances and evidence, which may be different or otherwise than the facts and circumstances before the Court in such reported cases. Therefore, even before discussing further the factual details available on record, it would be appropriate to appreciate the cited cases, which are as under. 28. Learned counsel Mr. Percy Kavina for the petitioner - defendant - wife is relying upon following decisions. "A) Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu reported in (1984)3 SCC 698 Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that the custody of the child shall be handed over to the mother, it cannot be ignored that the father in the reported case being husband of the appellant was convicted and sentenced to a term of three years for negotiating with a hitman to have the wife run-over by car. Needless to say that the wife is mother of the minor and that she was so generous enough that even after such conviction of her husband being father of the minor, she intervened and succeeded in obtaining a probation order for the father/husband, who had actually attempted to get her murdered. Needless to say that the wife is mother of the minor and that she was so generous enough that even after such conviction of her husband being father of the minor, she intervened and succeeded in obtaining a probation order for the father/husband, who had actually attempted to get her murdered. Thereby, husband/father was released on probation and after expiry of probation, when wife was away at work, the husband removed the minor boy from England and brought him to India. Thereafter, the most crucial fact is to the effect that immediately after such removal of minor child from England to India, practically, on the same day i.e. on 31.1.1983, the wife obtained an order u/s.81 of the Supreme Court Act, 1981 by which the boy became the ward of the Court with effect from that date. Therefore, the basic material is difference of consideration of the minor as a ward of the Court and not as a ward of his natural parents in this reported case, which is not the situation in the present case. Such order was confirmed by the High Court of justice (Family Division) on July 22, 1983. Meanwhile the wife/mother came to India in April, 1983 and she filed a petition u/s. 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming that father was having illegal custody of son in view of the order passed by the British Courts. But, at the relevant time, considering the provision of Sections6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Magistrate Court has dismissed the petition for custody and thereafter, wife had gone back to England to resume her work and obtained the order dated July 22, 1983, which is referred herein above and with such order she came back to India once again, armed with such order of the British High Court and filed the writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, asking for the production and custody of her minor. The High Court has also dismissed such petition on different grounds, but considering the reason for conviction of the father and earning activity of the mother - wife in England, ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of the High Court. However, the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 9 is material which reads as under:-- "9. However, the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 9 is material which reads as under:-- "9. Section 6 the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 constitutes the father as the natural guardian of a minor son. But that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. As the matters are presented to us today, the boy, from his own point of view, ought to be in the custody of the mother." Whereas in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that in matters relating to matrimony and custody, the law of that place must govern which has the closest concern with the well-being of the spouses and the welfare of the off springs of marriage and therefore, considering the fact that matrimonial home of the spouse was England, the Court has observed that in order to make it reasonable and just for the Courts of the State to assume jurisdiction to enforce obligations which were incurred therein by the spouses and thereby, it is stated that the modern theory of Conflict of Laws recognises and, in any event, prefers the jurisdiction of the State which has the most intimate contact with the issues arising in the case. So what is material is the issues arising in the case and the intimate contact with the State concerned, but factually speaking, the decision is practically based upon the fact that husband was convicted for conspiracy of murder of the wife and that English Court had already made the minor as its ward and thereby, English Court vis-à-vis the British Government has to take responsibility of the minor as its ward. The situation before us is quite different, which would be discussed in detail herein after, but it confirms that the minor was never ordered to be a ward of U.S. Court till date and that it cannot be said that issues arising in the case are not in terms of intimate contact of Courts in India for the simple reason that in absence of order declaring the minor as ward of English Court, the father is the natural guardian of the minor and there is nothing against him so as to continue the custody of the minor as it is certainly in the interest of welfare of the minor himself. It is clear and obvious on record in the present case that the American Court has not considered the minor as its ward and therefore, in absence of evidence and even pleading by the defendant- wife, who is non-earning, to the effect that how she or the American Government is going to take care of the welfare of the child, the custody of the child with the father, who is certainly well-equipped and the legal guardian, cannot be disturbed only because of the wish and desire of the defendant - wife so also based upon the cited judgment, which simply confirms that even for deciding the jurisdiction of the concerned Court, though intimate contact of Courts is to be looked into, the basic issue which is to be taken care of, is the welfare of the minor, and by all means, in absence of pleadings and proof by the defendant, today, the welfare of the minor certainly rests in the hands of the plaintiff - husband and therefore, there is nothing wrong in invoking the jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act read with the Guardian and Wards Act by the Courts at Ahmedabad in whose jurisdiction the minor and his guardian are, for the simple reason that atleast at present the minor is within the control of the Court at Ahmedabad and initial order of this Court is regarding maintenance of status-quo by the guardian i.e. not to change the position of custody of minor and thereby, at such interim stage, practically, the Court at Ahmedabad has, on the contrary confirmed the whereabouts of the minor considering his welfare. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the defendant - wife to plead and prove the welfare of the minor either in her hands or by the American Government before the trial Court which is yet to decide the matter finally. At the cost of repetition, let it be recollected that at present there is an interim order only and final order is yet to be passed by the Family Court. B) Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Aravand M. Dinshaw & Anr. At the cost of repetition, let it be recollected that at present there is an interim order only and final order is yet to be passed by the Family Court. B) Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Aravand M. Dinshaw & Anr. reported in (1987)1 SCC 42 : The factual details of such cited case is altogether different from the situation on hand inasmuch as in such cited case, the husband and wife being parents of the minor had already divorced and put an end to their matrimonial tie and while grant of divorce by American Court, the Court granted custody of the child to the mother and visitation right to the father, but unfortunately, the father secretly brought the child to India against the express order of the American Court and that too after couple of years since the divorce and at the time of visit during the weekend. To be more precise, if we refer paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment, it becomes clear that in 1980, mother with her son took up separate residence in a womens' shelter in Michigan and then she filed a petition for divorce within couple of days in the circuit Court, which by decree after a year held that there had been a break down in the marriage and declared it as dissolved and granted divorce. By the same decree, it was directed that the mother shall have the care, custody and control of the minor child until further orders of the Court whereas the father was given visitation rights once in a week for three hours with some additional benefit on some weekends. However, taking advantage of one such weekend, the father picked-up the child from the school in the year 1980 and secretly left USA for India without intimating the Court about his intention to take the child out of its jurisdiction and outside the country. Therefore, the mother had immediately moved the Michigan Circuit Court, which has considered the conduct of the father in taking the child from the custody of the person to whom it had been entrusted by the Court as most reprehensible since there was gross violation and contempt of the order of the Circuit Court in Michigan. Therefore, the mother had immediately moved the Michigan Circuit Court, which has considered the conduct of the father in taking the child from the custody of the person to whom it had been entrusted by the Court as most reprehensible since there was gross violation and contempt of the order of the Circuit Court in Michigan. As discussed herein above, there is no such situation in the case in hand, as there is no order of American Court regarding custody of the minor and when plaintiff - father immediately disclosed about his move, the decision in cited case is to be read with reference to the situation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in proper perspective. After discussing the factual details, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed and held that whenever the question arises before a Court pertaining to custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of the parties, but on the sole and predominant criteria of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has interviewed the minor twice in chambers and found from talking with him that child is too tender in age and totally immature to be believed to form any independent opinion of his own as to which parent he should stay with. Therefore, after referring several previous decisions, ultimately, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it will be in the best interest of the minor child that he should go back with his mother to the U.S.A. and continue there as a ward of the concerned Court having jurisdiction. Thus, the Court has considered the same aspect i.e. the child was ward of the American Court and thereby American Court is bound to see the welfare of the child. As already said herein above, the situation before us is altogether different. Thus, the Court has considered the same aspect i.e. the child was ward of the American Court and thereby American Court is bound to see the welfare of the child. As already said herein above, the situation before us is altogether different. One most interesting observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 11 is material to be recollected here with reference to the direction of the American Court in this case, whereby the American Court has even restricted the visitation right of the father while directing custody of the minor to be handed over to the mother, though father is the natural guardian, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "we have no doubt that the Circuit Court will take a lenient view and pass appropriate orders working out justice between the parties keeping in mind the important aspect that it will not be in the interest of minor child to completely alienate him from his father for whom the child has developed genuine affection. Such order was passed in the petition filed by the wife for Habeas Corpus in Indian Court; whereas, as aforesaid, the situation and jurisdiction of present litigation is altogether different from the petition of Habeas Corpus and that too for legal custody of mother pursuant to order by the competent Court in U.S.A.. In the present case, there is no such order and order which is referred by the wife is not properly placed on record of the trial Court and it is neither prior to the order by the Indian Court nor declaring the minor as a ward of U.S. Court and therefore, it would be inappropriate to find fault with the impugned judgment of the trial Court and therefore, in this petition under supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court, I do not see any reason to interfere or to quash such order. C) Ms. C) Ms. Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal reported in (2010)1 SCC 591 : The situation in the reported case is also similar to previous two cases inasmuch as therein girl child aged about only 3-1/2 years of age was brought to India by the parents but while returning back, the father has cancelled the ticket of himself and the minor and stayed back in India when mother has left alone for U.K. and immediately she started legal proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Family Division in U.K. praying for an order that minor child be made ward of the Court and for direction that the father should return the child to the jurisdiction of said Court. It is pertinent to note here that during their stay in India, she was not ready to stay with the father of the child and the child in the same house, but on her ex-parte application, the U.K. Court has directed the father by an ex-parte order to return the minor child, namely, Ms. Elina to the jurisdiction of such Court. Thereby, in all means, there was a prior order by the U.K. Court, though ex-parte, to return the minor child to U.K., therefore, at later stage, when grandfather of the child has filed a writ petition allegedly on the basis of a special power of attorney executed by the father of the child in his favour, seeking protection of the minor child before the Delhi High Court, the High Court has directed to take the child to England as a measure of interim custody observing that it is for the Courts of England to determine that which parent would be the best suited to have the custody of the child. Therefore, it is clear and obvious that there was prior order of the U.K. Court and therefore, in paragraph 28 it was observed and held that when the High Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K. was already in seisin of the matter, and it passed an interim order of restraint with further regard to the fact with interest of a 3-1/2 old girl child, that custody would be certainly with the mother, it would be appropriate to return the child to the jurisdiction of the U.K. Court. Thus, it cannot be ignored that there was an order that minor Elina Mittal shall remain as ward of the Court during her minority or until further order and that except for insisting that the minor to be returned to its jurisdiction, the English Court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. In paragraph 35 before concluding its determination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has re-emphasized the fact that the minor child has been declared as ward of the English Court till she attains majority, is a matter of considerable importance in consideration of the validity of the impugned order of the High Court and in paragraph 34, though emphasis was made to the effect that though comity of the Courts is to be taken into consideration, interest of the minor child is one of the most important consideration in the matters relating to the custody of a minor child. Therefore, for the decisive determination in the present judgment, with reference to the facts and circumstances as well as citation, it becomes clear that only because of final determination in a given case, it cannot be said that it is a thumb rule and that too irrespective of facts and circumstances, irrespective of absence of declaration of the minor as a ward of foreign Court and even without considering the welfare and interest of the minor, only because one of the spouse is claiming custody of the minor from the foreign country, the Indian Court has no jurisdiction at all. D) Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2015)5 SCC 450 : The defendant is relying upon discussion in paragraphs 46 to 56 and 61 to 67 emphasizing that the principle of the comity of Courts is essentially a principle of self-restraint, applicable when a foreign Court is seized of the issue of the custody of a child prior to the domestic court. It is further submitted with reference to paragraph 48 that in such a case, two principles are material i.e. (i) The principle of comity of courts and (ii) The principle of the best interests and the welfare of the child. It is further submitted with reference to paragraph 48 that in such a case, two principles are material i.e. (i) The principle of comity of courts and (ii) The principle of the best interests and the welfare of the child. However, it would be inappropriate to read only few traced lines from any judgment without scrutinizing the factual details, and circumstances as well as legal provisions relied upon by the Court in such judgment before following it blindly. On perusal of factual details of such reported case, it becomes clear that parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in such reported case were parents of the minor daughter. They married in the year 2000 in India, but settled in U.K. where their minor daughter was born in the year 2004 before which the mother has acquired the British citizenship and passport. Another child was born to them in the year 2008. Thereafter, the couple was having some matrimonial problems and therefore, mother left U.K. along with two daughters and came to India on 13.8.2012. On 21.8.2012, she prepared and signed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from her husband and filed such petition in the Family Court at Coimbatore on 23.8.2012. An application for custody was also preferred in such petition, but no order had been passed on such application by the Family Court till the husband had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus for the custody of minor daughters. However, before filing a petition for Habeas Corpus, the husband has, on 27.8.2012 come to Coimbatore with a view to amicably resolve all the differences with the wife and interestingly, while in Coimbatore, husband and wife lived in the same house with their two daughters with in-laws of the husband, but husband was not even aware about the fact that wife has already filed a divorce petition. Since both of them were unable to resolve their dispute amicably or otherwise, the husband returned to U.K. on or about 6.9.2012 and he received a summons dated 6.10.2012 from the Family Court in Coimbatore regarding divorce petition filed by the wife only on 16.10.2012, requiring him to enter appearance and present his case on 29.10.2012. Faced with such a situation, husband has initiated legal action before the High Court of Justice in U.K. on 8.11.2012 for making children as wards of the Court. Faced with such a situation, husband has initiated legal action before the High Court of Justice in U.K. on 8.11.2012 for making children as wards of the Court. With such petition, husband has annexed documents to indicate (i) that he had paid the fees of the children for a private school in U.K. with the intention that the children would continue their studies in U.K. (ii) that the children had left the school without information that perhaps they would not be returning to continue their studies. At this juncture, it is to be recollected that when mother had come to India with two minor daughters, they had purchased the return tickets for mother and two daughters for 2.9.2012 i.e. with an intention to return back to U.K. within three weeks. Thereafter, before any order is passed by any Court in India, the High Court of Justice (U.K.) passed an order dated 30.11.2012 making the children wards of the Court "during their minority or until such time as this provision of this order is varied or alternatively discharged by the further order of the court" and requiring wife/mother to return the children to the jurisdiction of the foreign court". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has quoted entire order, which makes it clear that the foreign Court has specifically ordered that the children shall be and remain wards of the Court during their minority and until such time as this provision of this order is varied or alternatively discharged by further order of the court and then issue certain directions to the mother, who happens to be a British citizen and mother of British children to bring the children to the jurisdiction of England and Welsh on or before 27.11.2012 and to inform the father, through his Solicitor regarding the arrangements that will be made for the return of the children and to attend the hearing of the case. There are certain other directions pertaining to the activity, after mother returns and surrenders to the foreign Court, which we are not concerned at present. After taking into consideration all the written statements filed by the mother, the foreign Court passed another order on 29.11.2012, which is virtually repeating its earlier order and renewing its request to concerned authorities. There are certain other directions pertaining to the activity, after mother returns and surrenders to the foreign Court, which we are not concerned at present. After taking into consideration all the written statements filed by the mother, the foreign Court passed another order on 29.11.2012, which is virtually repeating its earlier order and renewing its request to concerned authorities. Therefore, it becomes clear that there is a full-fledged consideration of the issue by the foreign Court and the ex-parte order was confirmed after hearing both the sides. The final order even goes to the extent of joining maternal grandparents of minor children, considering the fact that the children were residing with them with their mother. However, since wife/mother was not complied with the orders of the foreign Court, husband/father filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court in February, 2013 i.e. after couple of months for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground inter-alia that wife/mother had illegal custody of two daughters of the couple after the orders of the foreign Court. The Madras High Court has considered that the welfare of the children would be taken care by the mother when father has returned to U.K. and thereby, closed the petition. Therefore, practically, the factual details confirm that there is an order of declaring minor children in U.K. as wards of the Court, but the High Court has ignored such direction. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has scrutinized important five decisions on the subject between paragraphs 20 to 45.3. Amongst them, both the parties before us have relied upon some paragraphs where they are comfortable. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has scrutinized important five decisions on the subject between paragraphs 20 to 45.3. Amongst them, both the parties before us have relied upon some paragraphs where they are comfortable. If we recollect some of such reference, it becomes clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has noted that it did not make any reference at all to the principle of comity of Courts nor gave any importance to the passage quoted from Surinder Kaur Sandhu (supra) while deciding the case of Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma reported in (2000)3 SCC 14 , whereas in paragraph 38, the Court has framed three questions for its determination, which are as follows:- (i) Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition for custody of the child on the ground that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain it; (ii) Whether the High Court was right in declining exercise of jurisdiction on the principle of comity of courts; and (iii) Whether the order granting interim custody of the child to Ruchi Majoo calls for any modification in terms of grant of visitation rights to the father pending disposal of the petition by the trial court. The discussion and determination by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in such cited case thereafter in paragraph 39 to 39.6 are relevant to refer herein, which reads as under:- "39. We are not concerned with the first and the third question. As far as the second question is concerned, this court was of the view that there were four reasons for answering the question in negative. Be that as it may, the following principles were accepted and adopted by this court: 39.1 The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the welfare of a child is not enough for the courts in this country to shut out an independent consideration of the matter. The principle of comity of courts simply demands consideration of an order passed by a foreign court and not necessarily its enforcement. 39.2 One of the factors to be considered whether a domestic court should hold a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry for repatriating the child to the jurisdiction of the foreign court is the time gap in moving the domestic court for repatriation. 39.2 One of the factors to be considered whether a domestic court should hold a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry for repatriating the child to the jurisdiction of the foreign court is the time gap in moving the domestic court for repatriation. The longer the time gap, the lesser the inclination of the domestic courts to go in for a summary inquiry. 39.3 An order of a foreign court is one of the factors to be considered for the repatriation of a child to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. But that will not override the consideration of welfare of the child. Therefore, even where the removal of a child from the jurisdiction of the foreign court goes against the orders of that foreign court, giving custody of the child to the parent who approached the foreign court would not be warranted if it were not in the welfare of the child. 39.4 Where a child has been removed from the jurisdiction of a foreign court in contravention of an order passed by that foreign court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, the domestic court must consider whether to conduct an elaborate or summary inquiry on the question of custody of the child. If an elaborate inquiry is to be held, the domestic court may give due weight to the order of the foreign court depending upon the facts and circumstances in which such an order has been passed. 39.5 A constitutional court exercising summary jurisdiction for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may conduct an elaborate inquiry into the welfare of the child whose custody is claimed and a Guardian Court (if it has jurisdiction) may conduct a summary inquiry into the welfare of the child, depending upon the facts of the case. 39.6 Since the interest and welfare of the child is paramount, a domestic court "is entitled and indeed duty-bound to examine the matter independently, taking the foreign judgment, if any, only as an input for its final adjudication. Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011)6 SCC 479 ". After such discussion, the High Court has discussed the applicable law under the head of "discussion of law" starting from paragraph 46 onwards wherein paragraph 46 is very much material and important, which reads as under:- "46. Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011)6 SCC 479 ". After such discussion, the High Court has discussed the applicable law under the head of "discussion of law" starting from paragraph 46 onwards wherein paragraph 46 is very much material and important, which reads as under:- "46. The principle of the comity of courts is essentially a principle of self-restraint, applicable when a foreign court is seized of the issue of the custody of a child prior to the domestic court. There may be a situation where the foreign court though seized of the issue does not pass any effective or substantial order or direction. In that event, if the domestic court were to pass an effective or substantial order or direction prior in point of time then the foreign court ought to exercise self- restraint and respect the direction or order of the domestic court (or vice versa), unless there are very good reasons not to do so." Perusal of paragraph 47 to 56 of the judgment makes it clear that the domestic Court must take into consideration following four issues while deciding such matters. "(a) The nature and effect of the interim or interlocutory order passed by the foreign court. (b) The existence of special reasons for repatriating or not repatriating the child to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. (c) The repatriation of the child does not cause any moral or physical or social or cultural or psychological harm to the child, nor should it cause any legal harm to the parent with whom the child is in India. There are instances where the order of the foreign court may result in the arrest of the parent on his or her return to the foreign country. In such cases, the domestic court is also obliged to ensure the physical safety of the parent. (d) The alacrity with which the parent moves the concerned foreign court or the concerned domestic court is also relevant. In such cases, the domestic court is also obliged to ensure the physical safety of the parent. (d) The alacrity with which the parent moves the concerned foreign court or the concerned domestic court is also relevant. If the time gap is unusually large and is not reasonably explainable and the child has developed firm roots in India, the domestic court may be well advised to conduct an elaborate inquiry." The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has again discussed the factual details after scrutinizing various decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the unsuccessful mediation process and held in paragraph 67 that in given facts and efforts made so far by it, in opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, there is no reason to hold any elaborate inquiry as postulated in the case of L. (Minors), In re, (1974)1 All ER 913 (CA) and observed that elaborate inquiry is best left to be conducted by the foreign court which has the most intimate contact and the closest concern with the children. Therefore, overall reading of this judgment, makes it very much clear that in such latest judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made it crystal clear that there is no rule of thumb which confirms that in case of custody of a minor, if litigation is filed in India, it is to be considered as forum-shopping under the principle of comity of Courts, but the major issue is the principle of the best interest and welfare of the child for which elaborate inquiry is necessary by either of the Court i.e. Indian Court or Foreign Court and that the principle of the comity of courts is essentially a principle of self-restraint, it would be applicable when a foreign court is seized of the issue of the custody of a child prior to the domestic court. There may be a situation where the foreign court though seized of the issue does not pass any effective or substantial order or direction. In that event, if the domestic court were to pass an effective or substantial order or direction prior in point of time then the foreign court ought to exercise self- restraint and respect the direction or order of the domestic court (or vice versa), unless there are very good reasons not to do so. In that event, if the domestic court were to pass an effective or substantial order or direction prior in point of time then the foreign court ought to exercise self- restraint and respect the direction or order of the domestic court (or vice versa), unless there are very good reasons not to do so. Therefore, in the present case, when prior order of safeguarding the custody is by the Indian Court and when custody of the minor is with his legal guardian and when there is no prior order or dispute between the parties before any foreign Court, and when foreign Court has yet not declared the minor as its ward and thereby, when there is no evidence to confirm that who will take care of the minor, if he is taken to foreign country, when impugned order is of interim nature, I do not see any reason or substance to interfere with it in such supervisory jurisdiction. The factual discussion, which would be made herein after, after discussing all other judgments, which are cited at bar would also go to show that factual situation is also in favour of the plaintiff - father to continue with the custody of the minor, more particularly when mother does not have any source of income against settled life of the minor with his father and when minor has already been admitted in a school in India. E) Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma reported in (2015) SCC 318, the defendant - petitioner - wife has emphasized on provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which is reproduced herein contending that the custody of the minor, who has not completed the age of five years, shall ordinarily be with the mother. However, if we read the entire judgment and consider the facts of the case, it becomes clear that when minor Vihaan is more than five years of age, this judgment would not help the defendant - petitioner only on the count that the plaintiff had waited till the minor crosses the age of five years and thereafter, abducted him to India. It is already made clear and in fact it is admitted by the mother also that custody of natural guardian of a minor cannot be considered as abduction. It is already made clear and in fact it is admitted by the mother also that custody of natural guardian of a minor cannot be considered as abduction. On the contrary, the discussion of relevant issues and law in such cited case, makes it clear that the use of words "ordinarily resides" cannot be over-emphasized, but it ordains a presumption, albeit a rebuttable one and therefore, the argument regarding jurisdiction with reference to the phrase 'ordinarily resides' in the Guardians and Wards Act, if not misconceived then atleast needs to be scrutinized with reference to the facts and circumstances and discussion of law in different decisions and therefore, it cannot be said that only because defendant is submitting that Indian Court has no jurisdiction, the Indian Court should not exercise its jurisdiction, which is otherwise available to it. F) Savdas Sukabhai Karavadra v. Heenaben Savdas Karavadra & Ors. an unreported judgment dated 27.11.2015 in Special Criminal Application No. 6013 of 2015, wherein the Division Bench of this High Court has, relying upon all above judgments and when there was almost similar situation as we have found in all above cases that minor was ordered to remain as a ward of the Foreign Court, allowed the petition and directed the mother to take the child to U.K. However, as discussed in all above-referred citations, when factual details are almost similar in all such cases viz. Foreign Court was seized with the matter at earlier point of time and has declared the minor as its ward, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has declined to confirm the jurisdiction of Indian Courts. Whereas the situation in the case in hand is factually different from all such cited cases and therefore, only because of such judgments, which otherwise do not confirm that the Indian Court has absolutely no jurisdiction, but held that child should be taken to foreign Court; based upon the factual details in each such case, which is against the person who is keeping the minor in his custody at the relevant time and more particularly, based upon the fact that there is an interim order in favour of the other side by a Foreign Court and that too prior in time of adjudication started before the Indian Court, it cannot be said that the Indian Court does not have the jurisdiction at all irrespective of consideration of welfare of the child. G) Padmakumari and Ors. v. Dasayyan & Ors. reported in (2015)8 SCC 695 : This is a case under Specific Relief Act, but the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kavina has cited it to emphasize that failure of the plaintiff to perform his duty would disentitle him to get any relief, and if pleadings by the plaintiff is not in conformity with the form prescribed under the statute. In the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if suit is not as provided in Appendix-A to the CPC, then decree for specific performance granted by Court below is to be set-aside. Therefore, it is emphasized that if application is not filed as provided u/s. 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, then, plaintiff will not be entitled to any relief. However, there is no substance in such argument for the simple reason that suit is not for appointment of guardian, but it is mainly to safeguard the custody of the minor under the Family Courts Act. Therefore, this judgment would not help the defendant - wife - petitioner." 29. As against that, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for the respondent - husband is relying upon following decisions:- "1. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde reported in (1998)1 SCC 112 ; 2. Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011)9 SCC 479 ; 3. Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma reported in (2000)3 SCC 14 ; 4. Paul Mohinder Gahun v. Selina Gahun reported in 2006 Law Suit(Del) 930" Since all the judgments are having same determination in favour of the plaintiff, I am recording only sum and substance of such decisions as under. 30. While considering the provision of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ruchi Majoo's case (supra) that:-- "24. It is evident from a bare reading of the above that the solitary test for determining the jurisdiction of the court under Section 9 of the Act is the 'ordinary residence' of the minor. The expression used is "Where the minor ordinarily resides". Now whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is primarily a question of intention which in turn is a question of fact. The expression used is "Where the minor ordinarily resides". Now whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is primarily a question of intention which in turn is a question of fact. It may at best be a mixed question of law and fact, but unless the jurisdictional facts are admitted it can never be a pure question of law, capable of being answered without an enquiry into the factual aspects of the controversy. Further discussion by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is in paragraphs 29 to 31 in the same judgment and after reproducing the communication between the parties and after discussion of various judgments, in paragraphs 50 to 57, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has quashed and set-aside the High Court's order holding that all issues relating to the custody of child ought to be agitated and decided by the Foreign Court only because parties are American citizens but also directed that proceedings in G.P. No. 361/2001 pending before the Indian Court shall go on and be disposed of on the merits as expeditiously as possible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also confirmed the order regarding interim custody of the minor in favour of the petitioner before it. While deciding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest of the minor shall be better served if the minor continued in the custody of the petitioner before it, especially when the respondent has contracted a second marriage and did not appear to be keen for actual custody of the minor and that the minor was removed from the jurisdiction of the American Court in contravention of the Court's order, is factually incorrect since such proceedings were initiated only after he left the petitioner and minor behind in India, and that it cannot be ignored that minor was living in India and pursuing his studies at the relevant time. Ultimately, in paragraphs 63 and 67, it is observed that interest and welfare of the minor being paramount, a competent court in this country is entitled and indeed duty bound to examine the matter independently, taking the foreign judgment, if any, only as an input for its final adjudication. Thus, repatriation of the minor to the United States, on the principle of 'comity of courts' does not appear to be an acceptable option worthy of being exercised at this stage. Thus, repatriation of the minor to the United States, on the principle of 'comity of courts' does not appear to be an acceptable option worthy of being exercised at this stage. The situation in case on hand is almost similar, which will be discussed herein after with reference to the facts and circumstances. In Sarita Sharma's case (supra) also, similar view has been taken when husband was taking excessive alcohol. Even by going one step further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it will not be proper to be guided entirely by the fact that the appellant Sarita had removed the children from U.S.A. despite the order of the Court of that country and thereby, order in petition of Habeas Corpus by the High Court was dismissed considering the interest of the children. Whereas in Paul Mohinder's case (supra), the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has though honoured the principle of comity of Courts, it has observed and held that the facts of each case are extremely important and the important factor to be considered by the Court for deciding the custody of the child is the fact that the child in that reported case had not stayed with the respondent, but in a boarding school. It cannot be ignored that it was also a case of unauthorised removal. Whereas in the case on hand, there is no question of unauthorised removal in any manner whatsoever." 31. It may be pertinent to refer the decision of Padi Trigunsen Reddy & Ors. v. Jyothi Reddy & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 AP 119 , wherein it is held that as between the citizenship of children and their welfare, it is only welfare of the children that should be given the primacy. It is also observed that the question of jurisdiction is certainly a mixed question of fact and law as regards the rights of the parents to have the custody of the children and therefore, the order passed by the competent Foreign Court and the welfare of the children are to be reconciled carefully, basing on the various facts and circumstances of each case. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has raised an interesting, but clear question in paragraph 33, it is something like USA Law v. Indian Law? The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has raised an interesting, but clear question in paragraph 33, it is something like USA Law v. Indian Law? or the Law v. the welfare of the children, holding that ultimate consideration should be - the welfare of the child only, notwithstanding the kind of judgment or order or decree passed by the competent Court when the children are living in the association of either of the parent in a particular country. For the sake of enforcement of the judgment passed by the competent Court in a foreign country, the welfare of the child cannot be subjected to sacrifice because the children are not the parties to the differences of their parents. Therefore, undoubtedly, as between the law and the welfare of the child, the ultimate preference would always be the welfare of the child, inasmuch as the society in its entirety owes an obligation to the child but not the other way round. 32. Therefore, the overall discussion herein above makes it clear that the basic challenge in this petition by the defendant - wife is mainly regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Court with reference to the abode and citizenship of the minor so also the defendant himself and in support of jurisdictional issue, she is relying upon the principle of comity of Courts and allegation regarding forum shopping by the plaintiff - husband. As against that, the scrutiny of cited judgments, which are discussed herein above, makes it clear that though the comity of Courts is one of the issue to be taken into purview before deciding any such issue of custody of a minor, the basic and paramount consideration should be welfare of the child. 33. Now, therefore, let us examine the pleadings and evidence on record to verify that whether plaintiff has selected the proceeding before Indian Court only with a view to select the forum of Indian Court and as alleged by the defendant, only for the reason that litigation in Indian Court would never come to an end or that there is a reason for the plaintiff to initiate proceeding before the Indian Court and that whether Indian Court has jurisdiction or not. Such issue is being considered as comity of Courts in reported judgments, but with a rider that paramount interest of the children is the prime issue to be considered by the Court while deciding the custody of the children. 34. With this clarity, now, if we scrutinize the available pleading and evidence, it becomes clear that the defendant - wife has never pleaded anything before the Family Court and thereby, she has never replied to the contentions by the plaintiff in the plaint and application for interim relief and for the first time, she has filed more than 35 documents before this Court as annexures to the main petition, without a clarity that whether such documents, which run into more than 100 pages were ever filed before the trial Court so as to enable the trial Court being Family Court at Ahmedabad to appreciate the same while deciding the application at Exh. 5. Order below Exh. 5 is impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein this Court's jurisdiction is supervisory in nature. Therefore, one thing is clear and certain that this is not a statutory proceeding, but a general controlling provision and powers of the High Court to scrutinize and supervise the findings of the Courts subordinate to it. Therefore, broadly speaking, in absence of absolute illegality or irregularity, if the determination by the trial Court is broadly within the compass of law, facts, circumstances and evidence available on record before it, then, only because alternative view may be possible and only because of the fact that one of the party is not happy with such order, it would not be appropriate for any judicial system to interfere in all such interim orders. In the present case, even at the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that the defendant - petitioner herein is challenging such impugned order on several counts, but wants to rely upon more than 35 documentary evidence, which was never placed before the trial Court and submitted that now when such facts are disclosed before this Court, the other side has a notice of such documents and therefore, they should answer all the issues before this Court only. I do not agree with such submission of the defendant - wife. I do not agree with such submission of the defendant - wife. In any case, the impugned order is an interim order and Family Court, Ahmedabad is yet to arrive at a final order where defendant - wife has all rights and liberty to defend the plaint by filing reply to the plaint, so also by adducing evidence to prove her case. Therefore, only because of judgments relied upon regarding the principle of comity of Courts, based upon different facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that based on such judgments alone, defendant is entitled to assail the impugned order only on the ground of jurisdiction even without disclosing the requisite information that what would be consideration for welfare of the minor. 35. Even for the sake of argument, if we believe that information and documents disclosed by the petitioner with her petition can be looked into, the scrutiny of such information on the contrary reveals a different position, than the position, which is emphasized in all the previous decisions cited by the wife, so as to restrict the jurisdiction of Indian Court. Therefore, even at the cost of making this order lengthy and bulky for no valid reason, to avoid the allegation by petitioner - wife that this Court has failed to appreciate her petition, let us examine the record to verify that whether there is any sufficient reason to apply the principle of comity of Courts and to restrain the jurisdiction of the Indian Court in given facts, circumstances and evidence on record. 36. It is undisputed fact that defendant has received an intimation of initiation of proceedings before this High Court by the plaintiff initially on 4.9.2015. It is also undisputed fact that parents of the minor have some inter se dispute and that plaintiff - husband had to move to India with the child because his father was sick and hospitalized. 36. It is undisputed fact that defendant has received an intimation of initiation of proceedings before this High Court by the plaintiff initially on 4.9.2015. It is also undisputed fact that parents of the minor have some inter se dispute and that plaintiff - husband had to move to India with the child because his father was sick and hospitalized. It is also undisputed fact that there was communication between them right from 12.8.2015 when plaintiff has started to move to India atleast till 18.8.2016 i.e. almost for six days and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff - father has abducted the child to India, more particularly when he is natural legal guardian and most importantly there was no order of any Foreign Court so far as the custody of the minor Vihaan is concerned and he was even today not considered as a ward of any Foreign Court, including Courts in U.S.A. Thereby, even today, the custody of the minor is the only issue to be decided by the competent Court considering the rival claims for custody either by his father, mother or anybody else. It is also undisputed fact that custody of the minor is with the natural guardian, who has moved the Indian Court immediately after he received threats by the defendant. Plaintiff has received threats from the other side that she may initiate legal proceeding against the father so far as custody of the minor is concerned on 18.8.2015. The threats are in the e-mail dated 18.8.2015 by the wife, which is mentioned herein above. The defendant - wife has however claimed that on receiving intimation regarding interim order of custody of the minor with the plaintiff - father on 4.9.2015, she has filed a petition for emergency custody order of the minor child before the competent Court in U.S. and copy of such petition for temporary emergency custody filed before the Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara on 11.9.2015 is now annexed as Annexure -R-II with the petition. Therefore, one thing is certain that till the Indian Court has passed an interim order of safeguarding the custody of the minor by the plaintiff in form of an order of status-quo to be maintained by the plaintiff, there was no order of any Foreign Court regarding custody of the minor and therefore, there is no question of flouting or disobeying any such order by the plaintiff - father. To that extent, the factual details of each reported case and the present case are quite different and therefore, cited cases cannot be relied upon without appreciating the factual details emerging on record. 37. If we peruse Annexure-R-II at page 291 with the petition, which is referring a case numbered as 615FL015291, it is a declaration in support of ex-parte application for orders by the present petitioner -defendant wherein in prescribed form, in paragraph 5(C) when the form is asking to disclose further explanation for asking the Court not to require to issue notice to the other side, the defendant - wife has selected the option to provide factual explanation and thereafter, she has endorsed the form by separate typing of further explanation as under:- "The respondent kidnapped our four year old and left for India on August 12, 2015 without telling me. For over 30 hours, I had no idea what happened to our child or the respondent; they just disappeared. The respondent has since informed him of his intention to keep the child with him in India. Additionally, he filed a paper-work in India to get the custody of the child despite the fact the child's home state is California. The child has only resided in India for one month. In order for the District Attorney to help me get my child back, I need to have custody orders as well as orders for the child's return. I have also been informed by my attorney in India that I need to have custody orders in place by Friday September 18, 2015. I have not given Dad notice of my intent to file this motion because I believe if he knows that this Court is considering the issue of custody, that he might disappear again with my child and I might not be able to find him. I have not given Dad notice of my intent to file this motion because I believe if he knows that this Court is considering the issue of custody, that he might disappear again with my child and I might not be able to find him. At this point, I know where he is and I don't want to tip him off about this case until the DA gets involved." 38. Such declaration is dated 11.9.2015, but unfortunately, several incorrect statements were made by the wife before the Foreign Court claiming that minor is only four years old and was kidnapped though she was informed on day one by the plaintiff that why they are moving to India and it is undisputed fact that the minor is aged five years. Moreover, the last portion of her declaration makes it clear that she has pressed the Foreign Court for ex-parte ad-interim relief by an unethical disclosure. It is surprising to note that she is referring her attorney in India claiming that he has advised her for custody order to be in place before Friday 18.9.2015 and that even though plaintiff was before the Court of law in India and even though there was an order of status-quo regarding custody of the child by the plaintiff, she had the audacity to blame that she does not want to serve an advance notice to the husband - plaintiff, apprehending that in that case, he may disappear. Therefore, it becomes clear and obvious that defendant - wife had the audacity to get an order by Foreign Court even by disclosing improper, incorrect and unethical details. Based upon such application, it seems that the Family Court Division of Superior Court of Santa Clara County has issued a Family Law Notice calling upon the plaintiff to attend such Court on 16.9.2015. Such notice is at page 297 with a heading as summons. The record further shows that on 11.9.2015, the defendant - wife has also filed a main petition for custody and support to minor child wherein she has requested for legal as well as physical custody of child in paragraph 5 by crossing the box. Such notice is at page 297 with a heading as summons. The record further shows that on 11.9.2015, the defendant - wife has also filed a main petition for custody and support to minor child wherein she has requested for legal as well as physical custody of child in paragraph 5 by crossing the box. Whereas in paragraph 4 of such prescribed format of petition, when wife has to disclose that whether she has information about or that whether she has participated as a party or witness or in some other capacity in another Court case or custody or visitation proceeding in California or elsewhere concerning the child subject to this proceeding, though defendant has selected answer 'Yes' by crossing the appropriate box; while answering further, even though there was a specific direction to attach the copy of such orders and provide requisite information in the column of Court order or judgment date, the defendant - mother has though filled-up all other relevant columns kept such column regarding Court's order or judgment as blank and thereby defendant has suppressed the material fact regarding order dated 3.9.2015 by this Court confirming that minor is very well within the control and custody of the father and that this Court has directed to maintain status-quo of the custody of the minor. Thereby, the defendant has tried to see that there may be an order by the Foreign Court regarding custody of the minor. Based upon such disclosure, the Foreign Court has issued a notice on 16.9.2015 calling the husband to appear before it with an order that both the parties shall complete the parent orientation immediately. Whereas on 15.9.2015 i.e. just before the Foreign Court has issued the notice of the petition filed on 11.9.2015, the defendant - wife has filled up two other forms before the Foreign Court viz. child custody and visitation application attachment and spousal or partner support declaration attachment so also supporting declaration for attorney's fees and costs attachment. On perusal of such forms, it transpires that defendant - wife has categorically disclosed that she is not having job, but alleging that plaintiff - husband has left the country with the child without her permission. child custody and visitation application attachment and spousal or partner support declaration attachment so also supporting declaration for attorney's fees and costs attachment. On perusal of such forms, it transpires that defendant - wife has categorically disclosed that she is not having job, but alleging that plaintiff - husband has left the country with the child without her permission. Therefore, factually one things is clear that the plaintiff being natural legal guardian of the minor child, moved to India with a disclosure that he has so moved to India because his father is to be hospitalized and therefore, there is no question of seeking permission from anyone and to that extent, there is misrepresentation by the wife before the Foreign Court and she admits that she is not working. In the very next paragraph, the petitioner before the Foreign Court has to disclose with reference to the question that, has an order been made for payment for child support in this case and in reply to such query, the defendant - wife has to select the answer 'No' with an endorsement that I have requested child support in this motion. 39. It is a crucial disclosure and reflects the factual position in the present case since due to such difference in factual matrix in all cited cases and present case, it is a clear position in almost all cited cases that child was ordered to be a ward of the Court and therefore, there would be a payment for child support by the Government of such Foreign country. Whereas in the present case, there is no such order till date and in fact, defendant has requested in such motion for child support, but it is not disclosed on record that whether such order of payment for child support is there or not. Therefore, this would be a vital information and evidence to consider the welfare of the child inasmuch as now it is an admitted position that defendant - wife is not working and requesting for child support payment from the Foreign country, which has yet not granted any such child support and yet not declared the child as ward of that Court. 40. 40. Whereas, in the very next form of declaration, the defendant - wife has in categorical words, while disclosing her job skills and work history, disclosed that "I have not worked since I came to the United States six years ago. I have taken a program in user experience design but not started working yet". And in answer to the query regarding current job market for the job skills, the defendant - wife has again categorically disclosed that "I am looking for jobs right now and anticipate that I should be able to find work soon. If I find work it will be for significantly less than marital standard of living". Whereas in answer to the query regarding develop other more marketable job skills or employment, she has further stated that "I anticipate another 6 months to a year to complete my studies." 41. Whereas in response to the query regarding standard of living, she has disclosed and endorsed with her signature that "we lived a nice life. The respondent earns a lot of money and is able to save the majority of his earnings. Our rent is $3500 per month. We traveled to India 3 times in the last few years. We took vacations often to London, Mexico, Hawaii, Italy, New York, Denver, Las Vegas and Portland". In other query regarding assets and other obligations of the husband, she has disclosed that "the respondent has plenty of money. He has over 200K in savings and investments to the best of my knowledge. He also earns about $250,000 per year. He has some student loan but I don't think it is very much. We paid a lot of it off over the last six years. The respondent does not owe rent because he terminated the lease. He is living with his parents in India so he does not have a lot of expenses to the best of my knowledge". 42. Whereas, in query regarding facts in support of her request, it was asked by the Court authority to provide any facts indicating whether or not the supported party is able to work without unduly interfering with the interests of the children, she has disclosed - "I can put the child in childcare while I work" and ultimately, she claimed that "husband should bear the cost of funding the lawyer." 43. The above disclosure makes it clear that here is a mother who has not been able to earn for last six years in U.S.A. and who wants the husband to return back to U.S.A. with the minor and to stay with her, knowing fully well that income of the husband is sufficient for her to stay in U.S.A. with all comfort when husband is saving his income and considered that he does not have a lot to expend in India and that though she has no earnings and though there is no child support order by the competent Court, she intends to keep the child in child care and thereby wants to claim monetary support both from the husband and U.S. Government. These facts are self-sufficient to indicate that the welfare of the child is certainly with the father and not with the mother. Even if we rely upon the documentary evidence filed by the mother, there are several other information on record, which confirms that irrespective of such disclosure, the attitude and behaviour of the mother is such that it would be difficult to handover the custody of the child to her and that too when she is studying for the entire day and without any earnings and when she wants to keep the child in child care and in absence of any child care support order by the competent authority of Foreign Court. 44. It is quite clear that impugned order is simply confirming the first order dated 3.9.2016 by this Court. So practically, the order is by the Indian Court safeguarding the custody of the minor with the plaintiff and calling upon the defendant to defend such suit, but the defendant has selected not to defend the suit on merits, but only on technicality like jurisdiction of Court, alleging that this is forum shopping. In that case, scrutiny of all decisions on the issue and above disclosure, makes it clear that in fact the defendant has tried to shop the forum of U.S. Court by making false statement inasmuch as there is no parental abduction; so that she may get financial support from U.S. Court and/or Government under the pretext of custody of minor. 45. 45. In continuity of proceedings before the Foreign Court, the defendant - wife has also filed her pleadings on a separate sheet before the Family Court, copy of which is produced at pages 372 to 380. Such pleadings have the similar case number, which is referred herein above wherein now she has admitted that in fact on 12.8.2015 itself at about 6.30 p.m., she received an intimation that plaintiff - husband is leaving for India with the minor son. Therefore, the allegation of kidnapping is unwarranted. Then, she has disclosed some previous history wherein she alleged that this is not a sudden act, but a calculated move to shift the minor to India by the plaintiff - husband. Several print-outs of SMS messages with one Sanjiv Khanna without disclosing the name of the plaintiff are also produced at Annexure-E from pages 111 to 156. However, this is neither a conclusive proof nor even a prima facie evidence to believe such allegations, more particularly when defendant is not telling the truth before the Foreign Court and trying to hide factual details regarding the present litigation before the Foreign Court as discussed herein above. For such conclusion, there is now documentary evidence on record in the form of disclosure by the defendant herself in the same document. Whereas, in contrary to her previous disclosure, now she has no option but to disclose that on or about September 4th, she received a summons notifying her that her husband filed ex-parte emergency custody orders in India alleging that she is mentally unstable and cruel to him and that on or around September 3, 2015, the Gujarat High Court had required the husband to serve her and scheduled the hearing on September 9, 2015 and that she has hired attorney in India to plead her case and that by order dated 11.9.2015, the High Court has sent back the case to the Family Court with instructions to decide the issue on the jurisdiction and custody of the minor in accordance with law within four weeks. Therefore, now, it becomes clear on record that for getting any order from the foreign Court, defendant has hidden the facts or orders by the Indian Court and ultimately, it was disclosed that when she tried to reach some lawyers in Santa Clara County, they mentioned that there was conflict of interest and they would not give her any advise. Therefore, now, it becomes clear on record that for getting any order from the foreign Court, defendant has hidden the facts or orders by the Indian Court and ultimately, it was disclosed that when she tried to reach some lawyers in Santa Clara County, they mentioned that there was conflict of interest and they would not give her any advise. 46. It seems that pursuant to such suppression and misrepresentation by the defendant - wife before the Foreign Court, on 17.9.2015 the Judge of the Superior Court of California has passed an order that Mom shall have sole legal custody and physical custody pending further order of the Court. Mom shall be permitted to obtain replacement passport, Dad shall return the child to the Mom immediately in California as temporary emergency Court's order with several other disclosures in such proforma order. Therefore, one thing is certain that while pressing for such interim relief, defendant - wife has not disclosed the orders passed by this Court and such orders are not properly disclosed and filed before the Family Court, which has passed impugned order though on 8.10.2015 some documents only were produced before the Family Court, but without supporting pleadings and without confirming that how and why such documents should be relied upon, which is a basic principle of our jurisprudence that if any uncertified documents are produced on record, then it should be self-attested as true copy and should be supported by an affidavit that they are genuine documents and need to be relied upon as such. One more surprising and important issue need to be recollected here is an application at Exh. 29 by the defendant before the Family Court for postponement of date of pronouncement of order fixed for i.e. 19.10.2015 though it is with reference to the SLP filed by them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it becomes clear that the petitioner has tried her level best to see that there may not be an order by the Indian Court, so that she can press to execute the order of the American Court, which is obtained by not disclosing true and correct facts, atleast regarding ongoing proceedings and orders, by the Indian Courts. Such application at Exh. Such application at Exh. 29 was rejected by the Family Court on 15.10.2015 and impugned order was declared on 21.10.2015, whereby Family Court has simply reconfirmed the order dated 3.9.2015 regarding custody of minor, pendente lite and made it clear that defendant - mother has a right to seek visitation rights. 47. The defendant - wife has also produced some other documents on record without producing all such documents before the trial Court and tried to emphasize to this Court that now pursuant to the order dated 4.1.2016 by the Foreign Court, this Court and Indian Courts as such should not have entertained the petition by the father regarding custody of the minor. Therefore, the fact remains that till impugned order dated 21.10.2015, there was no order by any competent Foreign Court either regarding declaration of the minor as its ward or regarding his custody in any manner whatsoever and therefore, as already observed in the case of Ruchi Majoo (supra), it is within the competency of the Indian Court to proceed further in the matter atleast for scrutinizing the fact regarding welfare of the child and during such scrutiny, if it is found that welfare of the child is better ensured if his custody is continued with his father, then there is no reason to disturb the custody of minor, who is otherwise comfortable with the father and when father is able to upkeep the child as he was doing for all these years. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. 48. However, husband - respondent herein has filed a detailed affidavit in reply to all such new pleadings and allegations by the wife only at this stage of writ petition under Article 227 and clarified as follows:- "That the petitioner is absolutely unfit to retain the custody of the minor. That he has filed another substantial suit for getting divorce from the defendant. He narrated the development of relationship between the parties and his career that how defendant is misbehaving with the plaintiff and how she disturbed the domestic peace over trivial issues and showed herself authoritative and selfish; that how she was demanding large accommodation beyond the affordability of the husband; that how she was unwilling to bear the burden of maternity when minor was conceived and wanted to undergo abortion. That on more than one occasion, she wanted to abort the husband and minor child. Wife has always indicated her readiness for divorce allowing the husband to retain the custody of the minor. That there are instances of her lack of care and attention towards the minor Vihaan, which are narrated in detail in both the plaints and prayed to rely upon the same. As against that, when defendant has neither prayed nor controverted such fact, it is to be believed as such. That she was never interested to learn driving in U.S.A. and become independent for her logistics as well as domestic necessities. That she wanted to hire a full-time maid to do the household work, which is not within financial capacity of the petitioner, because she was never doing domestic work or cooking, but used to study the whole day and wanted to move around for no valid reason. In July, 2011, she took-up the kitchen knife and sliced her own wrist. Thereupon the husband being deeply shocked, immediately called the police, who provided her with medical assistance. The petitioner - defendant - wife was also detained for mental health evaluation. Copies of documents in connection of such incident are produced on record with such affidavit and also before the Family Court. Again, in the month of October, 2011, when defendant - wife had gone for shopping with minor, who was only 9 months old, she was arrested for shop lifting. Therefore, a lawyer was engaged by spending 2500 USD and husband had to pay 500 USD towards community service charges. Documents in connection with such shop lifting incident are produced before the Family Court as well as with such affidavit. In October, 2012, during trip to Hawaii, the defendant - wife went for photography, leaving the kid of less than 2 years behind in the car for two hours without bothering about his dinner and when husband expressed his disapproval over her irresponsible behavior, in response she flared-up and opened the door of a running car, endangering all including the minor and when petitioner has stopped the car to control the situation, she went out of the car and refused to get back in it. When minor was crying and screaming, she remained completely unfazed. When minor was crying and screaming, she remained completely unfazed. Therefore, husband was constrained to call the police to handle the situation and thereupon, she got into the car only with the help of police. Copies of relevant documents of such incidents are before the Family Court and with such affidavit. Wife has disapproved the husband's desire of returning to India to take care of his father. At present, the minor is enrolled into Jr. K.G. since September, 2015 in Mahatma Gandhi International School, Ahmedabad, a very reputed and ranked international school of the State and offering education in the International Baccalaureate Program. Minor has happily settled down in his school and making rapid progress and promoted to Sr. K.G., relevant documents to that effect are annexed with such affidavit. During their stay in U.S.A., husband had to spend 800 USD for nannies per month, whereas, in India, minor resided with his father and grandparents. Whereas from 2013, minor was put in a daycare, as plaintiff - husband has to attend his job, whereas defendant wife was attending her full-day course. That plaintiff - husband has borne the greater part of the responsibility of bringing up the minor Vihaan in attending his pre-school/daycare attendance and even during his illness. Documentary evidence viz. the certificate issued by Stanford Children's Health confirms that only plaintiff - father was taking care of Vihaan are produced on record. The plaintiff has also produced all other relevant documents pertaining to childcare. That defendant - wife is telling lie by stating that she has completed her graduation from CEPT University though she is not a graduate from CEPT University as she is not awarded the bachelor's degree as yet. However, she misrepresents herself by saying that she is graduate from CEPT University at various places with a view to secure job based upon such false qualifications. That she has suppressed various facts before the Court at California regarding the proceedings in India and orders passed by this Court as explained herein above. However, she misrepresents herself by saying that she is graduate from CEPT University at various places with a view to secure job based upon such false qualifications. That she has suppressed various facts before the Court at California regarding the proceedings in India and orders passed by this Court as explained herein above. That they are holding the green-card, but that does not disclose the intention to permanently reside in U.S.A. and therefore, even if husband has applied for U.S. Citizenship, but now, when he has neither received confirmation nor has he undertaken the oath of naturalization, even today, he is an Indian citizen and now he does not intend to go back to U.S.A., and has decided to settle down with the minor in India. It is not true that defendant - wife is a CEPT graduate and thereby well educated and therefore, able to maintain or take care of herself and the minor when she is without a job. It is not true that she has taken care of minor Vihaan since minor was under the care of Nanny and because Nanny was not taking care of the minor and therefore, minor was enrolled in a daycare center where he has to spend 6 - 7 hours a day. He has never abducted the minor from the custody of the wife as alleged, but minor was always in his custody and that she has neither taken care of the minor nor bothered to save the marriage and when there is no order regarding custody of the minor by any Court till he initiated present proceedings. Relationship identification and discussion of personal marital life with Sanjiv Khanna is specifically denied. It is clarified that Global Village Montessori is not a formal school but merely a daycare center. That affidavit in reply is also taking care of each and every allegation by the wife, negatives it with substantial evidence, whereas defendant - wife has the audacity to submit that she is not supposed to plead her case or disprove the allegation only because she is residing in U.S.A. and though she is Indian citizen and though Hindu Personal Law is equally applicable to her and wants the Indian Court to recuse itself. Defendant - wife has even after repeated requests by the husband, refused to join him with minor Vihaan even in a separate apartment in India. Defendant - wife has even after repeated requests by the husband, refused to join him with minor Vihaan even in a separate apartment in India. She has filed false complaint against husband on 17.8.2015 though she was aware about the Court's order and thereby incriminated the husband under false and frivolous allegations. The husband's decision to rush to India and stay in India is mainly based on ill-health of his father, which cannot be considered in negative manner on any count. Though wife was called to join them, she chose to stay in U.S.A. though she is financially unable to bear the burden of managing the house and the minor in U.S.A., in absence of her earning activities. Minor has never been removed illegally from U.S.A. The suit for custody is not filed with any oblique motive or nefarious design as alleged because minor was never abducted and that suit is filed with intention to protect the custody of the minor only. Plaintiff being natural guardian is lawfully entitled to continue the custody. The orders of the U.S. Court are after the substantive and effective order of the Indian Court and therefore, they are not enforceable. It is not true that order by U.S. Court is by parte as claimed by the wife since the U.S. Court has directed the wife to serve the plaintiff - husband through the provisions of the Hague Convention and asked her to serve the notice upon the husband. Since plaintiff has decided to settle in India and to take care of his ailing father and to bring-up and educate Vihaan in India and thereby now when they are residing within the jurisdiction of Indian Court, the Family Court at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction. Since there is no abduction of the minor because plaintiff is his father and thereby natural and legal guardian. That order dated 17.9.2015 by the U.S. Court is ex-parte and in absence of husband, whereas prior order dated 11.9.2015 by this Court is after hearing both the parties and therefore, Family Court has rightly decided the interim custody of the minor by the impugned order even after documents of U.S. Court were filed on record. That order dated 17.9.2015 by the U.S. Court is ex-parte and in absence of husband, whereas prior order dated 11.9.2015 by this Court is after hearing both the parties and therefore, Family Court has rightly decided the interim custody of the minor by the impugned order even after documents of U.S. Court were filed on record. That for the plaintiff and minor, now Ahmedabad is the permanent place of residence and therefore, Family Court has most proximate connection with the issue of custody of the minor since it cannot be said that minor is residing in India under any compulsion. Minor was never removed from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court, but under the given circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to permanently reside in India with a view to look after his sick father and hence, minor has accompanied him to India being the Ward of the plaintiff. Whereas defendant being a stay-home mother, she has to follow the husband, but she does not want to leave U.S.A. and therefore, her husband and minor cannot be blamed with perverse allegations. In any case, the plaintiff is not a wrongdoer as alleged, whereas, defendant has faced several charges and her attitude is also improper and against the interest of the minor. That though plaintiff has agreed to stay with defendant in a separate accommodation and deposit Rs. 3 Lacs before the Family Court for mediation, the defendant - wife has summarily turned down the mediation proceedings. When defendant - wife has no job in U.S.A, she has no reason to stay in U.S.A., but it seems that under the pretext of custody of minor child, she wants alimony from the husband and monetary benefit from the local Government to stay in U.S.A., so as to fulfill her desire to stay independently in U.S.A. as per her choice, which is also a dangerous proposition." 49. In view of above discussion, it is difficult to believe the arguments of the wife that the decision of husband - father to stay back in India with the minor is taken under any coercion or duress. It is also difficult to appreciate that how defendant - mother misrepresented before the U.S. Court regarding custody of the minor alleging that the husband has illegally abducted the minor. It is also difficult to appreciate that how defendant - mother misrepresented before the U.S. Court regarding custody of the minor alleging that the husband has illegally abducted the minor. The fact remains that on the date of suit, minor was ordinarily residing with the father and he has been admitted to a school where he has been studying for last two months. 50. In light of the above background, if we consider that whether the custody of the minor is to be entrusted to the father as ordered by the Family Court or with the mother as claimed in this petition, in deciding such question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration. A reference to the case of Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu reported in (2008)9 SCC 413 is material, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has re-emphasized that statutes and statutory rights although relevant, interpretation of statutory provision cannot be made sole base of decision in such cases and the problem has to be solved rather with a human touch. It is further observed and held that in dealing with such cases, the Court is neither bound by statute nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents, since in selecting the guardian, the Court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction and therefore, it must give due weightage to child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings as well as physical comforts and moral values, so also child's wishes if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference. Character of the proposed guardian also requires to be considered and therefore, it is held that proper test to determine the suitability to have the custody of the minor is positive test of welfare of the minor and not the negative test that father was unfit or disqualified to have the custody. In such reported case, father was facing criminal charges; whereas in the present case, mother had faced such criminal charges and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that such fact ought to have been taken into consideration. 51. Therefore, overall circumstances very much makes it clear that the welfare of the child is certainly with the father rather than the mother. 52. 51. Therefore, overall circumstances very much makes it clear that the welfare of the child is certainly with the father rather than the mother. 52. In view of above facts and circumstances and discussion of factual details, so also the pleadings and evidence available on record, it becomes clear that - "1. There is no prior order of declaring the minor as a ward of any Foreign Court. Thereby, there is no order regarding appointment of guardian of the minor, either Officer of the Court or the defendant - mother and till then the natural guardian is the plaintiff - father. 2. Plaintiff - father has neither abducted the child nor floated or committed any breach of any direction or order of any Foreign Court. 3. Therefore, principle of Comity of Courts cannot apply stricto sensu so as to throw away the plaint summarily for want of jurisdiction of Indian Court. 4. In any case, paramount consideration in such cases is the welfare of the child. 5. The evidence on record certainly confirms that the welfare of the child would better be taken care of by the plaintiff - father rather than defendant - mother because father is well educated and having earnings and proper collateral root inasmuch as he wants to stay with his Family as against the mother, who is mentally unstable because once she has cut her wrist and on second occasion, she opened the door of running car, such actions would result into endangering life of the minor. 6. Mother is having the audacity to commit offences like shop lifting, telling lie on oath and misrepresentation etc. 7. The defendant - mother has no capacity to work in U.S.A. since she is unable to complete her study even after six years of stay in U.S.A. and she has even not completed her graduation in India. 8. She desires to keep the child either under child care or nanny or in daycare center against the plaintiff's social set-up of staying in family with the grandparents. 9. 8. She desires to keep the child either under child care or nanny or in daycare center against the plaintiff's social set-up of staying in family with the grandparents. 9. It is evident on record that mother has claimed for childcare support in monetary form from the foreign Court, but Foreign Court has yet not granted any such monetary benefit and there is no clarity even in form of pleading on record that in absence of Court's order, the Californian Government is going to bear the expenses for the welfare of the minor. Thereby, defendant - wife - mother is seeking the custody of the minor only with a view to get monetary benefits both from the husband - father as well as local Government when she has no independent earning activity and thereby earnings. 10. In any case, the wife has submitted and argued before this Court that to ascertain the veracity of husband's claim, he needs to be cross-examined and therefore, there is a need to initiate some inquiry. 11. The impugned order is at present an interim order, which may vary after inquiry, where the defendant - wife would have ample opportunity to prove her case since till date she has neither pleaded nor proved her case for custody of the minor. 12. There is no irregularity, illegality, perverseness, arbitrariness or any favour in the impugned order being an interim order so as to interfere with it by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only." 53. Therefore, by all means, I am of the view and opinion that the welfare of the child is certainly with the plaintiff - husband - father of minor Vihaan and not with the petitioner - wife - mother of the child, who wants to stay in U.S.A., though she has no earnings and she is yet to complete her studies even after six years of stay in U.S.A. may be for getting monetary benefit from such a situation. 54. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the petition and hence, petition is dismissed. 55. 54. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the petition and hence, petition is dismissed. 55. However, considering the dispute between the parties and issues raised before Indian Courts, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent/original plaintiff being husband of the petitioner and natural legal guardian of the minor Vihaan to file following undertakings before the Family Court, Ahmedabad within one week from the date of passing of this order to the effect that - "1. He shall not take minor Vihaan to any country other than California in USA without prior permission of Family Court, Ahmedabad. 2. He shall submit the progress report of the minor Vihaan, along with his recent photographs made or verified as true and correct by the Organisation, regarding his moral and material progress, to the Family Court, Ahmedabad in every three months till pendency of the suit."