{"id":214521,"date":"1986-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986"},"modified":"2018-10-14T22:03:45","modified_gmt":"2018-10-14T16:33:45","slug":"mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR, 3\t\t 1987 SCR (1) 175<\/div>\n
Author: V B Eradi<\/div>\n
Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMRS. ELIZABETH DINSHAW\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nARVAND M. DINSHAW AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/11\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR    3\t\t  1987 SCR  (1) 175\n 1987 SCC  (1)\t42\t  JT 1986   795\n 1986 SCALE  (2)745\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of  India,  1950--Article  32--Divorce  in\nUSA--Minor  child--Custody  given to mother  and  visitation\nrights\tto  father by American\tCourt--Father  abducted\t the\nchild  and  brought to India against express orders  of\t the\nAmerican  Court--Orders of proper foreign  Court--Should  be\nregarded-Child restored to mother to be taken back to U.S.A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner, a citizen of the United States\t of  America\nresiding  Michigan, was married to the first respondent,  an\nIndian\tcitizen,  who  after marriage settled  down  in\t the\nUnited States and secured employment. A male child was\tborn\nto the couple in America. Difference arose between them\t and\nthe petitioner alongwith her son took up separate residence.\nShe  tiled a petition for divorce in the Circuit  Court\t for\nthe  country  of saginaw, Michigan which  granted  a  decree\nholding\t that  there had been a breakdown  in  the  marriage\nrelationship  and declared tile marriage as  dissolved.\t The\ndecree\talso  directed\tthat the petitioner  slab  hove\t the\ncare,.\tcustody\t and  control of the minor  child  until  he\nreaches\t the  age  of 18 years. The  first  respondent,\t the\nfather\twas  given visitation rights by the decree.  On\t the\nabject\tof travel with the minor child to any place  outside\nthe  United States, it was directed that only on a  petition\nthe  Court  shall make a determination as  to  whether\tsuch\ntravel is in the best interest of the minor child, and\twhat\nconditions shall he set-forth to ensure the child's  return.\nThe  Court  also  directed that the  lint  respondent  shall\nnotify\tthe  Office  of. the Friend of\tthe  Court  promptly\nconcerning any changes in his address.\n    Taking advantage of the weekend visitation rights grant-\ned  by the said decree, the first respondent picked  up\t the\nchild\tfrom his school and secretly left America for  India\nan January 11th, 1986. He had not intimated the Court  about\nhis intention to take the child out of its jurisdiction\t and\noutside\t the country nor had he given the slightest  indica-\ntion to the petitioner about his intention to leave  America\npermanently for India. Immediately before leaving for India,\nthe first respondent sold away his immovable property and it\nwas only from the Airport that he posted a letter  tendering\nhis resignation from his Job.\n 176\n    Coming  to\tknow that the minor child had not  been\t re-\nturned\tto the day care centre by the first respondent,\t the\npetitioner  moved the Circuit Court complaining against\t the\nviolation  by  the  first respondent of\t the  terms  of\t the\nCourt's decree. The Court issued a warrant of arrest against\nthe  first respondent an the ground of unlawful\t taking\t and\nre-  taining  the child outside the State, followed  by\t the\nissue of a Federal warrant of arrest on the ground of unlaw-\nful flight to avoid prosecution. Since the first  respondent\nhad  already come over to India with the minor\tchild  these\nwarrants  could\t not he executed in the United\tStates.\t The\nConsular Officer, American Consulate General, Bombay, visit-\ned  the residence of the first respondent's parents in\tPune\nbut  the  minor child was not present there and\t the  grand-\nparents\t reported  that the child and his  father  had\tgone\nNorth,\tpossibly to Kashmir and that they were not aware  of\ntheir exact whereabouts. Thereafter, the petitioner flied  a\npetition  in  this Court seeking the issuance of a  writ  of\nHabeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce in  Court\nher  minor  child  and to hand over custody to\ther  as\t the\nperson entitled to it under the order of a competent foreign\nCourt.\n    In\tresponse  to the notice issued by  this\t Court,\t the\nfirst  respondent appeared and produced the child  in  Court\nand  filed  a counter-affidavit explaining his\tconduct\t the\nexplanation tendered by him was that his father was serious-\nly  ill\t and he wanted his father to see the child.  It\t was\nfurther submitted that the child prefers to stay With him in\nPune and hence he was admitted in a School there and that it\nwill  be  in  the interest of the child that  he  should  he\nallowed to reside with him in India.\nDisposing of the petition,\n    HELD:  1. Whenever a question arises before\t Court\tper-\ntaining to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to he\ndecided not on consideration of the legal rights of  parties\nbut on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best\nserve the interest and welfare of the minor. [181F]\n    2.\tIt is the duty of all Courts in all countries to  do\nall  they can to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain  an\nadvantage  by  his wrongdoing. The Courts in  all  countries\nought  to  be careful not to do anything  to  encourage\t the\ntendency of sudden and unauthorised removal of children from\none  country to another. This substitution of self-help\t for\ndue process of law in this field can only harm the interests\nof the wards generally, and a judge should pay due regard to\nthe  orders of the proper foreign Court unless he is  satis-\nfied  beyond  reasonable doubt that to do so  would  inflict\nserious harm on the child. [183B-D]\n177\nRe H. (infants), 1966 (I) All E.R. 886, relied upon.\n    3.\tThe  conduct of the first respondent in\t taking\t the\nchild  from  the custody of the person to whom it  had\tbeen\nentrusted by the Court was undoubtedly most  repprehensible.\nThe  explanation  sought to be given, namely,  his  father's\nillness,  is  far from convincing and does not\tin  any\t way\njustify\t such gross violation and contempt of the  order  of\nthe Circuit Court in Michigan. [181E]\n    4.\tThe  child's presence in India is the result  of  an\nillegal act of abduction and the father who is guilty of the\nsaid  act cannot claim any advantage by stating that he\t has\nalready\t put  the child in some school. The conduct  of\t the\nfather\thas  not been such as to inspire confidence  in\t the\nCourt  that he is a fit and suitable person to be  entrusted\nwith the custody and guardianship of the child. [182C]\n    5.\tIt will be in the best interest and welfare  of\t the\nchild that he should go back to the United States of AmeriCa\nand  continue  his  education there under  the\tcustody\t and\nguardianship  of the mother to whom such custody and  guard-\nianship\t have  been entrusted by a competent Court  in\tthat\ncountry. The petitioner who is the mother, it full of  genu-\nine  love and affection for the child and she can be  safely\ntrusted to look after him, educate him, and attend in  every\npossible  way to his proper up-bringing. The child  has\t not\ntaken  root in this country and he is still  accustomed\t and\nacclamatized to the place of his origin in the United States\nof America. [181 H- 182A, B]\n    6.\tThe first respondent has tendered before this  Court\nan unconditional apology. The proper step to be taken by him\nis to tender such an apology to the Court whose order he has\nviolated. He has been found to be in contempt of the Circuit\nCourt, Saginaw, Michigan for violation of its order and that\nCourt  has  consequently terminated  the  visitation  rights\nconferred  on the first respondent. He may move\t that  Court\nfor modification of its order on tendering his unconditional\napology to that Court. The petitioner should cooperate\twith\nthe  respondent\t in the matter of enabling him to  have\t re-\nstricted visitation rights in America and should also extend\nher cooperation for the withdrawal of the warrants of arrest\noutstanding against the first respondent. [I83F-184C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 270 of 1986
\nUnder Article 32 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
 178<\/span><\/p>\n
Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Kapil  Sibal,  Karanjawala, Mrs. Karanjawala  and\tC.V.
\nSubba Rao for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. Immediately on conclusion of\t the
\nhearing of arguments in the above Writ Petition on June\t 11,
\n1986, having regard to the urgency of the matter, we  passed
\nthe following order:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “We  allow  the\tWrit  Petition\t and
\n\t      direct that the minor boy, Dustan be  restored
\n\t      forthwith\t to  the custody of  the  petitioner
\n\t      i.e. the mother with liberty to the petitioner
\n\t      to  take him to the United States.  The  child
\n\t      will  be\ta  ward of the\tconcerned  Court  in
\n\t      Michigan\tand it will be open to\tthe  father,
\n\t      first respondent herein to move that Court for
\n\t      a review of the custody of the child, if he is
\n\t      so advised. Detailed reasons will follow.\t The
\n\t      passport\tof  the child  which is\t in  deposit
\n\t      with  the\t Registrar  of this  Court  will  be
\n\t      returned to the petitioner i.e. the mother  of
\n\t      the child today itself. The concerned authori-
\n\t      ties  of\tthe Govt. of India will\t afford\t all
\n\t      facilities  to  the mother to take  the  child
\n\t      back  to\tthe United States  pursuant  to\t the
\n\t      order passed by this Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  now\t proceed to state in this judgment  our\t reasons  in
\nsupport of the order.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petitioner, Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw is a citizen  of
\nthe United States of America residing in the State of Michi-
\ngan.  She  is  employed as a case worker for  the  State  of
\nMichigan  in Genesee County Department of  Social  Services,
\nFlint Michigan. The first respondent, Mr. Arvand M. Dinshaw,
\nwho is an Indian citizen was a student at Northern  Michigan
\nUniversity  in 1971. During that period the  petitioner\t was
\nalso  studying there. What started as a\t friendship  between
\nthem  on the campus later developed into love and the  peti-
\ntioner\twas married to the first respondent in a civil\tmar-
\nriage  before  a legal magistrate in Negaunee,\tMichigan  on
\nFebruary  26, 1972. The first respondent thereafter  settled
\ndown in the United States more or less on a permanent  basis
\nhaving secured employment as an Accountant for the  Control-
\nler’s Office in Genesee County. and having obtained a perma-
\nnent
\n179<\/span>
\nimmigration  Visa.  A male child, Dustan, was  born  to\t the
\ncouple\ton  August 30, 1978 in Rochester,  Michigan,  United
\nStates of America where they were having their marital home.
\n    Unfortunately, differences arose between the two spouses
\nlate  in the year 1980 and on December 23, 1980,  the  peti-
\ntioner\talong with her son took up separate residence  in  a
\nwomen’s\t shelter in Saginaw, Michigan. She filed a  petition
\nfor divorce on January 2, 1981 in the Circuit Court for\t the
\nCounty\tof  Saginaw, Michigan. By a decree dated  April\t 23,
\n1982,  the Circuit Court held that it had  been\t established
\nthat there had been a breakdown in the marriage relationship
\nto  the\t extent that the objects of matrimony had  been\t de-
\nstroyed and there remained no reasonable likelihood that the
\nmarriage  could be preserved and hence it declared the\tmar-
\nriage  as dissolved and granted a divorce to the  petitioner
\nas prayed for. By the same decree, it was directed that\t the
\npetitioner  shall have the care, custody and control of\t the
\nminor  child of the parties until he reaches the age  of  18
\nyears  or until the further orders of that Court. The  first
\nrespondent,  the father was given visitation rights  by\t the
\ndecree\tand  it was provided that he  shall’have  visitation
\nwith the minor child from approximately 5 P.M. to 8 P.M.  on
\nthe Wednesday of every week during which he does not have  a
\nweekend\t visitation. It was further ordered that the  father
\nshall  have  visitation with the minor\tchild  on  alternate
\nweekends  from 5 P.M. on Friday until the  following  Monday
\nmorning\t when  he should return the child to  his  day\tcare
\ncentre. On the subject of travel with the minor child to any
\nplace outside the United States, it was specifically direct-
\ned in the decree as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “IT  IS  FURTHER\tORDERED\t AND  ADJUDGED\tTHAT
\n\t      should  the Defendant ARVAND M. DINSHAW.\twish
\n\t      to  travel  with the minor child\toutside\t the
\n\t      territorial  limits of the United\t States.  he
\n\t      shall  bring  a petition\tbefore\tthis  Court.
\n\t      setting  forth the conditions under  which  he
\n\t      intends  to leave the country with  the  minor
\n\t      child. The court shall then make a  determina-
\n\t      tion as to whether such travel is in the\tbest
\n\t      interests of the minor child. and what  condi-
\n\t      tions shall be set forth to ensure the child’s
\n\t      return.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Taking advantage of the weekend visitation rights grant-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ed  to him by the above decree, the first respondent  picked
\nup  Dustan from his school on January 10, 1986 and  secretly
\nleft  the United States of America for India on January\t 11,
\n1986. at about 8.30 in the night. He
\n180<\/span>
\nhad not intimated the Court about his intention to take\t the
\nchild out of its jurisdiction and outside country nor had he
\ngiven  the slightest indication to the petitioner  about.his
\nintention to leave the United States of America\t permanently
\nfor India. It may be stated that immediately before  leaving
\nfor India, the first respondent had sold away the  immovable
\nproperty consisting of a house and its premises owned by him
\nin Seymour, Lindan, Michigan, where he had been residing and
\nit was only from the Airport that he posted a letter tender-
\ning  his resigation from his job as Accountant in the  Coun-
\ntry.  In this context it is significant to recall  that\t the
\ndecree\tof the Circuit Court contained the following  direc-\n<\/p>\n
tions:\t\t  .\n<\/p>\n
\t      “IT  IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that\t the
\n\t      Defendant\t shall\tnotify\tthe  Office  of\t the
\n\t      Friend  of the Court promptly  concerning\t any
\n\t      changes  in  his address.\t The  Court  further
\n\t      finds that the Defendant is presently residing
\n\t      at 14155 Seymour, Lindan, Michigan.”\n<\/p>\n
    It was only late in the day on Monday, January 13., 1986
\nthat  the  petitioner  came to know that  the  minor  child,
\nDustan\thad not been returned to the day care centre by\t the
\nfirst respondent. She immediately moved the Michigan Circuit
\nCourt  complaining  against the violation by the  first\t re-
\nspondent of the terms of its decree. A warrant of arrest was
\nissued\tby  the\t Michigan Circuit Court\t against  the  first
\nrespondent  on\tJanuary 16, 1986 on the ground\tof  unlawful
\ntaking\tand retaining the child outside the State. This\t was
\nlater  followed by the issue of a Federal warrant of  arrest
\nagainst the first respondent on the January 28, 1986 on\t the
\nground\tof unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.  Since\t the
\nfirst  respondent  had already come over to India  with\t the
\nminor  child, these warrants could not be executed  in\t.the
\nUnited\tStates. The first respondent has his ancestral\thome
\nin Pune where his parents are residing. The petitioner\tmade
\nfrantic efforts through American Consulate General at Bombay
\nto trace out the whereabouts of Dustan. She received a reply
\nthat  the  Consular  Officer,  American\t Consulate  General,
\nBombay travelled to Pune on Friday, March 7, 1986 and though
\nshe  was able to visit the residence of the  first  respond-
\nent’s  parents\tand she spoke with them,  the  minor  child,
\nDustan was not present there and the grand-parents reported-
\nthat  Dustan  and his father had gone  North,  possible,  to
\nKashmir\t and  that they were not aware of the  exact  where-
\nabouts\tof Dustan and the first respondent.  The  petitioner
\nfinding herself totally helpless to recover back the custody
\nof her minor child, whom she had brought up for more than 7
\n181<\/span>
\nyears,\tthereafter arranged to have this petition  tiled  in
\nthis  Court  seeking the issuance of writ of  Habeas  Corpus
\ndirecting  the\trespondents to produce in  Court  her  minor
\nchild,\tDustan\tand to handover his custody to\ther  as\t the
\nperson\tentitled to his custody under the order of a  compe-
\ntent foreign Court.\n<\/p>\n
    In response to the notice issued by this Court directing
\nproduction of the child before the Court, the first respond-
\nent appeared and produced the child in Court. He has filed a
\ncounter-affidavit  but significantly there is absolutely  no
\nsatisfactory  explanation  given there for  his\t conduct  in
\nabducting the child from America without seeking  permission
\nof  the Court in that country of which the minor child,\t was
\nward. His only explanation is that his father was  seriously
\nill and he wanted that his father in his ailing condition to
\nsee  Dustan. He has further stated that his son\t Dustan\t has
\ntold him on an enquiry that he would prefer to stay with him
\nin Pune and hence he had got Dustan admitted in St. Helena’s
\nSchool in Standard III. According to him he had not deliber-
\nately  done anything wrong in bringing Dustan with him\tfrom
\nthe  United  States  and that now the minor  child  is\twell
\nsettled here in India and it will be in the interest of\t the
\nchild that he should be allowed to reside with him in  India
\nas per the child’s desire.\n<\/p>\n
    The conduct of the first respondent in taking the  child
\nfrom the custody of the person to whom it had been entrusted
\nby the Court was undoubtedly most repprehensible. The expla-
\nnation\tsought to be given by him namely, his father’s\till-
\nness, is far from convincing and does not in any way justify
\nsuch  gross violation and contempt of the order of the\tCir-
\ncuit Court in Michigan.\n<\/p>\n
    Whenever  a question arises before Court  pertaining  to
\nthe  custody of a minor child, the matter is to\t be  decided
\nnot on considerations of the legal rights of parties but  on
\nthe sole and predominant criterion of what would best  serve
\nthe interest and welfare of the minor. We have twice  inter-
\nviewed Dustan in our Chambers and talked with him. We  found
\nhim to be too tender in age and totally immature to be\table
\nto  form  any  independent opinion of his own  as  to  which
\nparent\the should stay with. The child is an American  citi-
\nzen.  Excepting\t for the last few months that  have  elapsed
\nsince  his being brought to India by the process of  illegal
\nabduction  by the father, he has spent the rest of his\tlife
\nin  the\t United States of America and he was doing  well  in
\nschool\tthere. In our considered opinion it will be  in\t the
\nbest interests and welfare of Dustan that he should go\tback
\nto  the United States of America and continue his  education
\nthere under the custody and guar-\n<\/p>\n
182<\/span><\/p>\n
dianship of the mother to whom such custody and guardianship
\nhave been entrusted by a competent Court in that country. We
\nare also satisfied that the petitioner who is the mother, is
\nfull of genuine love and affection for the child and she can
\nbe  safely trusted to lookafter him, educate him and  attend
\nin  every possible way to his proper upbringing.  The  child
\nhas  not taken root in this country and he is  still  accus-
\ntomed  and acclimatized to the conditions  and\tenvironments
\nobtaining in the place of his origin in the United States of
\nAmerica.  The child’s presence in India is the result of  an
\nillegal act of abduction and the father who is guilty of the
\nsaid  act cannot claim any advantage by stating that he\t has
\nalready put the child to some school in Pune. The conduct of
\nthe father has not been such as to inspire confidence in  us
\nthat  he is a fit and suitable person to be  entrusted\twith
\nthe custody and guardianship of the child for the present.
\n    In Re. H. (infants) [1966] 1 All E.R. 886, the Court  of
\nAppeal in England had occasion to consider a somewhat  simi-
\nlar  question. That case concerned the abduction to  England
\nof two minor boys who were American citizens. The father was
\na  natural-born American citizen and the mother,  though  of
\nScottish  origin,  had\tbeen resident for 20  years  in\t the
\nUnited\tStates of America. They were divorced in 1953  by  a
\ndecree\tin Mexico, which embodied provisions entrusting\t the
\ncustody of the two bOys to the mother with liberal access to
\nthe father. By an amendment made in that order in  December,
\n1964,  a  provisions was incorporated that the\tboys  should
\nreside\tat all times in the State of New York and should  at
\nall times be under the control and jurisdiction of the State
\nof New York. In March, 1965, the mother removed the boys  to
\nEngland,  without  having obtained the approval of  the\t New
\nYork  court,  and without having consulted the\tfather;\t she
\npurchased a house in England with the intention of remaining
\nthere  permanently and of cutting off all contacts with\t the
\nfather.\t She  ignored an order made in June,  1965,  by\t the
\nSupreme Court of New York State to return the boys there. On
\na  motion  on  notice given by the father  in  the  Chancery
\nDivision of the Court in England, the trial’ judge Cross, J.
\ndirected that since the children were American children\t and
\nthe American Court was the proper Court to decide the  issue
\nof  custody, and as it was the duty of courts in  all  coun-
\ntries to see that a parent doing wrong by removing  children
\nout  of their country did not gain any advantage by  his  or
\nher  wrongdoing, the Court without going into the merits  of
\nthe  question as to where and with whom the children  should
\nlive, would order that the children should go back to Ameri-
\nca.  In\t the appeal filed against the said judgment  in\t the
\nCourt of Appeal, Willmer
\n183<\/span>
\nL.J. while dismissing the appeal extracted with approval the
\nfollowing passage from the judgment of Cross, J. :–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The sudden and unauthorised removal of  chil-
\n\t      dren  from one country to another is  far\t too
\n\t      frequent\tnowadays, and as it seems to me,  it
\n\t      is the duty of all courts in all countries  to
\n\t      do  all they can to ensure that the  wrongdoer
\n\t      does not gain an advantage by his wrongdoing.
\n\t      The  Courts in all countries ought, as  I\t see
\n\t      it,  to  be  careful  not:to  do\tanything  to
\n\t      ‘encourage this tendency. This substitution of
\n\t      self-help for due process of law in this field
\n\t      can only harm the interests of wards  general-
\n\t      ly,  and\ta  judge should, as I  see  it,\t pay
\n\t      regard  to  the orders of the  proper  foreign
\n\t      Court unless he is satisfied beyond reasonable
\n\t      doubt that to do so would inflict serious harm
\n\t      on the child.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    With  respect  we  are in complete\tagreement  with\t the
\naforesaid enunciation of the principles of law to be applied
\nby the Courts in situations such as this.\n<\/p>\n
    As\talready observed by us, quite independently of\tthis
\nconsideration  we have come to the firm conclusion  that  it
\nwill  be  in the best interests of the minor child  that  he
\nshould\tgo  back with his mother to the\t :United  States  of
\nAmerica and continue there as a ward of the concerned  Court
\nhaving\tjurisdiction  in the State of  Michigan.  The  first
\nrespondent  has tendered before this Court in  an  affidavit
\nfiled  by him an unconditional apology for having  illegally
\nbrought\t Dustan\t over  to India from the  United  States  in
\nviolation of the order of the competent Court in that  coun-
\ntry. The proper step to be taken by him is to tender such an
\napology\t to  the Court whose order he has violated.  It\t was
\nbrought to our notice that by an order passed by the Circuit
\nCourt,\tSaginaw,  Michigan on February 11, 1986,  the  first
\nrespondent  has been found to be in contempt of\t that  Court
\nfor  violation of its order and the Court  has\tconsequently
\nterminated the visitation rights which had been conferred on
\nthe first respondent by the decree dated April 23, 1982.  It
\nwill  be open to the first respondent, if he is so  advised,
\nto  move  the Saginaw County Circuit Court in the  State  of
\nMichigan  for  modification of this order on  tendering\t his
\nunconditional  apology to that Court, and if he is  able  to
\nsatisfy that Court that there is genuine
\n 184<\/span>
\ncontrition and regret on his part for the wrong that he\t has
\ndone,  we have no doubt that the Circuit Court will  take  a
\nlenient view and pass appropriate orders working out justice
\nbetween\t the  parties keeping in mind the  important  aspect
\nthat  it will not be in the interest of the minor  child  to
\ncompletely  alienate him from his father for-whom the  child
\nhas developed genuine affection. We have also no doubt\tthat
\nthe petitioner will not take a vindictive attitude but would
\nforget and forgive what has happened in the past and cooper-
\nate  with the father in the matter of enabling him  to\thave
\nrestricted visitation rights in America with all  necessary,
\nproper and adequate safeguards and that the petitioner would
\nalso  extend her cooperation for the withdrawal of the\twar-
\nrants of arrest outstanding against the first respondent  in
\ncase he approaches her with such a request.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the  reasons  stated above, the  Writ\tPetition  is
\ndisposed  of with the directions issued by our\torder  dated
\nJune 11, 1986.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\ndisposed of.\n185<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR, 3 1987 SCR (1) 175 Author: V B Eradi Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J) PETITIONER: MRS. ELIZABETH DINSHAW Vs. RESPONDENT: ARVAND M. DINSHAW AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/11\/1986 BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-14T16:33:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T16:33:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\"},\"wordCount\":2863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T16:33:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-14T16:33:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986","datePublished":"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T16:33:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986"},"wordCount":2863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986","name":"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T16:33:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-elizabeth-dinshaw-vs-arvand-m-dinshaw-and-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}