RENU JUDGE Vs. NANIK TIRATH MULCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A. NO. 2466/2009 by this application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the applicant/plaintiff has sought an interim injunction that defendant No. 1 be restrained from filing any legal and custody proceedings against the plaintiff in Singapore and from prosecuting any proceedings already filed there.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that the plaintiff, a U. K. Citizen, was married to defendant, an Indian citizen having resident status in U. K, in 1994. To the parties, a son named Nikhil was born on 9th September, 1997. The parties could not live together for long and plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings against the defendant in u. K. court in 2003 and a decree nisi was granted in this divorce matter on 26. 9. 2003 by U. K. court. The U. K. Court also passed an order in respect of the custody and visitation rights of defendant in respect of child Nikhil. The plaintiff, thereafter, secured employment in Singapore and applied to u. K. court for removing child Nikhil to Singapore. This application of the plaintiff was allowed by High Court of Justice Family Division of United kingdom on 27. 2. 2004 and the U. K. Court directed the plaintiff to obtain a mirror order in respect of the arrangement made by it concerning child nikhil from Singapore court. The Plaintiff moved to Singapore and made an application before Singapore court in accordance with the directions given by U. K. court. U. K. court order was mirrored by Singapore court on 12. 3. 2004. The plaintiff in order to secure mirror order had filed detailed affidavit before Singapore court. Since plaintiff continued living in singapore and established her business there with one Mr. Amit Judge, with whom she had continued long relations, the Singapore Court was moved to from time to time regarding visitation rights of defendant. In 2008, plaintiff decided to marry Mr. Amit Judge and decided to reside with him in India. There was an exchange of correspondence between her advocate and advocate of defendant. In view of the fact that plaintiff and defendant were both governed by the order of Singapore Court regarding visitation rights of defendant and regarding custody of Nikhil during vacation period to the defendant and other welfare measures for child, the defendant was informed by plaintiff about her plans of shifting the child to India. Child Nikhil, prior to that, was studying in Singapore and was in ordinary custody of plaintiff with certain vacation and visitation rights to the defendant. On receiving this notice, the defendant counsel wrote to the plaintiff counsel that an appropriate order should be obtained from court at Singapore for removing the child to India. Accordingly, plaintiff made an application to Singapore court seeking permission of Singapore court for removing the child from the jurisdiction of Singapore court. The Singapore court gave conditional permission to plaintiff to remove the child to India. The proceedings before singapore court did not come to an end and remained pending. The plaintiff after coming to India filed a suit under Section 7, 8 , 9 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act before District Judge, Delhi for her appointment as guardian and for custody of the child Nikhil Mulchandani, although, the plaintiff already had an order in her favour regarding custody of the child granted to her by court of U. K Court and then mirrored by Singapore Court. In her suit, she herself mentioned that the litigation had already been made in U. K. and singapore. After filing the suit before District Judge, Delhi she preferred the present suit before this court seeking an injunction that the defendant should be restrained from continuing proceedings before Singapore court.

(3.) THE defendant was served notice of the suit and the application. Defendant has placed on record the different affidavits filed by plaintiff before Singapore court and the different orders passed by U. K. court and singapore court. There is no dispute as far as the facts are concerned and about the fact that plaintiff had removed child from the jurisdiction of singapore court after obtaining an order from the Singapore court to which defendant was a party. The relevant portion of the order dated 15. 8. 2008 reads as under: -