POOJA MALHOTRA Vs. PANKAJ MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After courtship of seven years, appellant no.3 Anupma Malhotra and respondent no.1. Pankaj Malhotra tied their knots in December, 1995, in India. At the time of their marriage they were both Indian Citizens. On 19.11.1996 while in India they were blessed with a girl child Hena. In search of better career, the couple along with their daughter Hena, shifted to New Zealand on April 10, 1997. While working in New Zealand in November, 1999 they surrendered their Indian Passport and accepted the citizenship of New Zealand. While in New Zealand, they were blessed with another daughter Pooja on 3.10.2000 and a son Krish on 13.06.2006. Both Pooja and Krish were born in New Zealand, as such they were natural citizens of New Zealand by birth. Entire family of five are thus citizens of New Zealand. They have not surrendered their citizenship of New Zealand and even till date are continuing to be its citizens. The family is also registered as overseas citizens of India after the insertion of Section 7A by Act No.32 of 2005 in the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Indian Embassy at New Zealand has also issued 'OCI' Card 'as it is called' to the entire family to continue to live and work in New Zealand.

(2.) In March, 2008, in order to explore chances of settlement in India, the family came to India. On 14.02.2011 the appellant no.3 Anupma Malhotra along with her three children went back to New Zealand apparently on account of certain discord having arisen with her husband respondent no.1. Today both the parents are not even willing to see each other and are not even willing to pay for the other's coffee when they were requested by the Court to spend some time together. The children are divided. The eldest daughter Hena is with her mother whereas the two younger ones are with their father. They are all confused and lost. We were pained to see how a settled family breaks up. Both the parents are financially independent. They are well educated coming from decent families. Children are torn mentally and emotionally between the parents. They are confused.

(3.) While in New Zealand the mother filed an application for the custody of the children in June, 2011, before the Family Court at Wellington. On the said application notices were issued to the respondent no.1, the husband who filed his objections. Thereafter the Family Court at Wellington on 12.08.2011, passed a Parenting Order by consent under Section 40 (3), 48 and 55 of the Care of Children Act, 2004. The said order along with the terms and conditions contained therein are reproduced below-