Child Abduction In India

827 Words4 Pages
Child Abduction and India India is considered to be a safe haven for parental child abductors. India is not a signatory nation to the fundamental international treaty that protects the rights of abducted children, that is the Hague Convention. There have been more child abductions from the United States to India than to any other country which is non signatory to the convention. One such example is of Sanjay Sardana, person of Indian descent, who took his three year old daughter to India with intent of obstructing parental rights of the child’s mother and was later convicted. With India being a non-signatory to the convention, the quick return of the child is hindered and relatively slow. Courts in India deals with child removal like any…show more content…
does so for India. Courts here are with the power to hear a case afresh, even if the divorcing couples and children have not resided here and are citizens of the United States. Many abductors cite the fact that the removed child is well settled in the culture of India and therefore will not be able to adjust – this slows down the procedure even more. Determination of rights as per Indian law for a child removed to India would not work in best interest and therefore should be determined by the Court and law of the child’s origins, the determination should be by the country of origin. There are no explicit laws that deal with the issue but High Courts and Supreme Court of India entertain writs of habeas corpus for securing custody of the child removed, along with that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, have been utilized in cases as a tool for securing the…show more content…
This writ has been looked upon as an effective mean for ensuring release of a detained person and it emphasizes on the legality of the detention. By habeas corpus writ a High Court or the Supreme Court can cause an illegally detained person to be produced physically in the court; the Supreme Court has the power to issue the writ under article 32 of the Constitution of India . However, when the writ is issued it does automatically exonerate the detained person from liability. Indian judiciary has utilized this writ in numerous cases to release an illegally retained child. In the case Manju Tiwari Vs. Rajendra Tiwari the habeas corpus petition (filed by the mother) directed the custody to the mother with visitation rights awarded to the father. Similarly in Amita Gautam Vs. Ramesh Gautam, under the writ (filed by the mother) the custody of the minor child (who had been removed from Canada by the father) was restored to the mother. Similar decision was upheld in Sarvajeet Kaur Mehmi Vs. State of Rajasthan. In the case Mrs. Kuldeep Sidhu vs Chanan Singh and Ors. , the petition was filed by the mother to summon her two minor children and for the custody to be handed to her. It was held that welfare of the children (here Canadian citizens) overrides any consented custody arrangement and the children will have the right to grow up in the country of their birth. The petition was upheld in the case of being files by a person who is not a citizen of India as in Atya Shamim Vs.

More about Child Abduction In India

Open Document