Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 89 (ALL)

Neil Tuteja v. State of U. P.

2025-01-22

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 6 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has filed the recall application alongwith the delay condonation application. 3. Cause shown for the delay is found to be sufficient to condone the delay. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned AGA for the State have no objection in condoning the delay. 5. The delay is hereby condoned and the instant application is allowed. Order on Civil Misc. Recall Application No.7 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has moved the application seeking recall of the order dated 11.11.2024. 3. Ground shown for recalling of the order dated 11.11.2024 is also found to be sufficient. The recall application is accordingly, allowed. 4. The order dated 11.11.2024 is hereby recalled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. Order on Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. Shadan Farasat assisted by Mr. Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Ms. Tahira Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal assisted by Mr. Subir Lal and Mr. Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Ratan Singh and perused the record. 2. The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed with the following prayer: " a. Issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing Respondent No.4 to produce corpus Neil Tuteja and Dev Tuteja sons of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court; b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or order commanding Respondent No.4 to release Neil and Dev Tuteja from her illegal and unlawful detention; c. Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; d. Award costs in favour of the petitioner." 3. Briefly stated, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed through the natural guardian/father Nitin Prem Tuteja, a citizen of Singapore, seeking direction to respondent no.4 to produce his two minor sons, Neil Tuteja (aged about seven years) and Dev Tuteja (aged about three years), who are US Citizens by birth and alleged to be permanent residents of Singapore and stated to be illegally detained in India by their mother. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/father Nitin Prem Tuteja and the respondent no.4/mother Pritha Vijay had established their matrimonial home in Singapore in the year 2012. Due to estranged relationship, the respondent no.4 is stated to have abducted his two minor sons on 22.11.2022 from Singapore to India without the petitioner's knowledge and consent and illegally detained them in India. Thus, depriving them the father’s love and affection and also depriving them the social benefits available to them as permanent residents of Singapore. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a police report dated 22.11.2022 regarding the abduction before the Singapore Police. 5. Additionally, the petitioner approached the Family Justice Courts in Singapore on 17.01.2023 by filing an Originating Summons ("OSG8") under Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1934, seeking custody and return of the children to Singapore. However, the Court ruled in favour of the mother. The petitioner, therefore, filed an Appeal before the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore, wherein vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2024, it was directed that the petitioner and the respondent no.4 shall share joint custody of the two minor children and it was further directed that the respondent no.4 shall return the children to Singapore within fourteen days of the order, in advance of their return, no later than seven days of the order, i.e. 06.03.2024 and the respondent no.4 shall inform the petitioner whether she will remain in Singapore with the children etc. But the said order has not been complied till date. The petitioner also filed a Divorce Petition (D742) on 21.02.2023 before the Family Justice Courts in Singapore. 6. The respondent no.4 also filed OSG 40 on 27.03.2023 before the Family Justice Courts, Singapore seeking retrospective relocation to India. But the said order has not been complied till date. The petitioner also filed a Divorce Petition (D742) on 21.02.2023 before the Family Justice Courts in Singapore. 6. The respondent no.4 also filed OSG 40 on 27.03.2023 before the Family Justice Courts, Singapore seeking retrospective relocation to India. On 11.07.2023, the District Judge of the Family Justice Courts, Singapore had heard both the cases together and direction was issued to respondent no.4 to provide uninterrupted virtual access of the children to the petitioner in a closed private room. The two cases were finally decided by the District Judge on 31.08.2023 and granted the joint custody of the children to the petitioner and respondent no.4. The retrospective relocation application (OSG 40) was also allowed granting regular virtual and physical access of the children to the petitioner. However, the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Family Division of the High Court at Singapore through notices of Appeal (District Court Appeal 87). The petitioner had even filed a second notice of Appeal against the decision given by the District Judge in OSG 40 (DCA 88/2023). In December 2023, the petitioner had also initiated committal (Contempt) proceedings against the respondent no.4 on account of her violating the orders of District Judge. 7. Finally by order dated 28.02.2024, a Family Division of the High Court, Singapore, allowed the two appeals and directed the petitioner's children to be returned to Singapore. 8. It has also been contended that the respondent no.4 has filed other vexatious petitions at Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, viz, a) petition seeking custody of her both minor sons b) a complaint containing allegation of domestic violence c) a divorce proceeding. 9. It has been further argued that both minor sons are the citizens of Singapore, therefore, the proceedings before the Family Court in India, are without jurisdiction. 9. It has been further argued that both minor sons are the citizens of Singapore, therefore, the proceedings before the Family Court in India, are without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the series of decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, viz, a) Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu & another (1984) 3 SCC 698 b) Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw & another (1987) 1 SCC 42 c) V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India and others (2010) 1 SCC 174 d) Surya Vadahan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2015) SCC 450 e) Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali (2019) 7 SCC 311 f) Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67 g) Sri Nilanjan Bhattacharya v. State of Karnataka (2021) 12 SCC 376 h) Vasudha Sethi and others v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 SCC Online SC 43 I) Rajeshwari Chandrashekhar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 885 j) Abhay v. Neha Joshi and another, 2023 SCC Online Bombay 1943 10. It has been emphasized that the petitioner being a Portfolio Manager at Balyasny Asset Management (Singapore) Private Limited has a stable job and can provide financial stability to his children. Even respondent no.4 Pritha Vijay is also a Singapore permanent resident and can remain in Singapore indefinitely. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that the two minor sons were never abducted or illegally detained by respondent no.4. On 19.11.2022, due to aggressive behaviour and physical and mental harassment meted out by the petitioner, respondent no.4 was left with no other alternative but to leave the apartment at Singapore and shifted to a friend's residence alongwith her minor sons. Apprehensive of further domestic violence, she applied for personal protection order against the petitioner on 21.11.2022. In the absence of any personal accommodation, respondent no.4 had no option except to leave Singapore and return back to India. It has further been asserted that respondent no.4 had spent most of her life in India and stayed for 6 years in USA. She did not spend any significant time in Singapore. Elder son Neil Tuteja has spent first 3 years in Singapore and he had to undergo various changes in Schools and environment and now he is well settled in India. She did not spend any significant time in Singapore. Elder son Neil Tuteja has spent first 3 years in Singapore and he had to undergo various changes in Schools and environment and now he is well settled in India. Younger son Dev Tuteja has merely spent 10 months in Singapore and has spent majority of his life in India. The petitioner has spent majority of his life in India followed by equal time in USA and Singapore and other countries. Respondent no.4 and her sons do not share any ties or connectivity with Singapore. Both the sons are US citizens by birth and hold Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) Card in India. This status allows the children to reside and receive education in India and enjoy all rights available to any NRI. The children are currently going to a School at Greator Noida since December, 2022, the elder son Neil Tuteja has been enrolled in the reputed Learners International School, which offers International Baccalaureate (IB) Curriculum and has already finished Kindergarten and Grade-I from this School and is now in Grade-II. The younger child Dev Tuteja goes to a nearby a Play School ICON and would soon be joining the elder son in the same School. Both the children share a special bond with each other and have adjusted themselves in India. The petitioner/father has been staying in India for considerable time but did not make sincere effort to reconcile differences to persuade the parties to return back to Singapore. It has also been asserted that as India is not a signatory to either Hague Convention on the Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction, 1980 or the Hague Convention On Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children, 1996 and, therefore, cannot seek remedy under the garb of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition seeking execution of order dated 28.02.2024 passed by Family Courts Division of High Court, Republic of Singapore, which is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 12. 12. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has also relied upon the series of case laws, viz, a) Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 112 b) Gita Hariharan and another v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228 c) Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2017) 8 SCC 454 d) Reshu @ Nithya and 2 others v. State of UP and others, HABC No.9/2020 e) Vahin Saxena (Minor) and another v. State of UP and 3 others HABC No. 467 of 2021 f) Mithilesh Maurya and another v. State of UP and 5 others HABC No.82/2024. 13. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of records, it transpires that the petitioner/father Nitin Prem Tuteja has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking direction to respondent no.4/mother to produce the corpus Neil Tuteja (aged about seven years) and Dev Tuteja (aged about three years), who are presently residing in India with her. It also transpires that the District Judge and the Appellate Court, i.e, the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore vide its order dated 28.02.2024 has granted custody of the two minor sons jointly to the petitioner and respondent no. 4 which order has now attained finality. 14. Thus, if the two minor sons are residing with their mother, the same cannot be said to be an illegal detention. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds that, prima facie, the corpus (two minor sons) have not been illegally detained by respondent no.4 as she has been granted joint custody of her children by the Court at Singapore. The other grounds raised by the petitioner, are wholly irrelevant for the purposes of issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Thus, there appears no occasion for this Court to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue the writ prayed for. 16. There is yet another reason why a Habeas Corpus is not liable to be issued. There exists a valid order of a Higher Court of Singapore, which is a Court of Competent Jurisdiction and Singapore is one of the countries notified by the Central Government as a “Reciprocating Territory” for the purposes of Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 . There exists a valid order of a Higher Court of Singapore, which is a Court of Competent Jurisdiction and Singapore is one of the countries notified by the Central Government as a “Reciprocating Territory” for the purposes of Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 . Thus, enforcement of the order of the Higher Court of Singapore is open for execution in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 44-A of Civil Procedure Code. 17. The petitioner, in essence is seeking compliance of the order(s) of a Foreign Court through this Habeas Corpus Petition, for which he has a statutory alternative remedy as indicated above. 18. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.