Supreme Court of India
V. RAVI CHANDRANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1087
- Decided
- 28 August 2009
- Disposal
- Hearing Adjourned
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
In extraordinary circumstances where state police are unable to locate a missing child, the Supreme Court may assign the CBI to trace and produce the child before the Court in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Summary
Petitioner V. Ravi Chandran filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking custody of his minor son, alleging that the child's mother had taken the child to India in violation of a New York Supreme Court custody order that granted joint custody and later sole legal custody to the petitioner. Despite extensive search efforts by police in several Indian states, the child and the mother could not be located for nearly two years. The Supreme Court examined whether it could direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to trace the missing child and produce him before the Court. The Court held that, given the extraordinary circumstances and the failure of state police, the CBI may be assigned this task. Accordingly, the Court ordered the registry to write to the Director of the CBI, empowering the agency to conduct a search, issue non‑bailable warrants if necessary, and produce the child before the Court, with the matter to be listed again after six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to trace a missing minor in a habeas corpus petition under Article 32.
- Whether such direction is permissible given the jurisdiction of the Court and the powers of the CBI.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
habeas corpuschild custodyinternational custodyCBICentral Bureau of InvestigationArticle 32missing childfamily lawSupreme Court
Judgment
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1022
A V. RAVI CHANDRAN
v. -+
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(CRL.M.P. No.3401 of 2009)
in
B Writ Petition No.112 of 2007 ~
AUGUST 28, 2009
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] +-
J
c Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 32 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Marriage of the
couple dissolved by New York Supreme Court with provision
for alternative physical custody of their minor child on aiweekly
D basis - Wife brought the child to India in violation of court
order- Family Court, New York granted sole custody of child
to father and issued child abuse non-bailable warrants against
~
>(..,
•
wife - Petition by husband before the Supreme Court of India
for a writ of Habeas Corpus for custody ofchild - Held: Despite
efforts made by police officers of various States, the
E
respondent-wife and the minor child could not be traced and
their whereabouts could not be found - It is almost two years
since the notice was issued but he child could not be
produced - Respondent wife is said to be mentally unstable 1
and running round with the child from one State to an.:>ther -
F In the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances, Central i
Bureau of Investigation may be assigned the task of tracing
the minor and his production before the Court - This has
become all the more necessary for the protection of health
and safety of the minor and because the police authorities of
G various States are clueless about the whereabouts of the
respondent-wife - Registry of the Court is directed to write to
the Director, CBI requesting him to trace the minor - For the :t
'
said purpose the officers concerned of the CBI would have
H 1022
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1023
all the powers of police carrying out search and issue non- A
--+ -- bailable warrants if necessary and pick up the minor wherever
he is found without interference from anyone and to produce
him before the Court - Child and family welfare - Custody of
child.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Crl. M.P. No. 3401 of
B
2009.
-+\ In
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 112 of 2007. c
Pinky Anand, D.N. Goburdhan, Prabal Bagchi, Attin
Rastogi, S. Thananjayan, A.T.M. Sampath, Chandan
Ramamurthi, Kamini Jaiswal, D. Bharathi Reddy, Anuradha
Rustogi, Anitha Shenoy for the appearing parties.
..,(
D
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
~
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Should Central Bureau of Investigation
be requested to trace the minor child Master Adithya Chandran E
in the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father is the question
presently before us?
)..
2. Dr. Ravi Chandran -petitioner and Vijayashree Voora
~ - respondent no. 6 got married qn December 14, 2000 at F
"I
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites. On July 1,
2002, a son - Adithya was born out of the wedlock in United
States of America. The matrimonial discord arose between the
petitioner and respondent no. 6 soon thereafter. Respondent
no. 6 approached the State of New York Supreme Court in the G
month of July, 2003 for divorce and dissolution of marriage. On
April 18, 2005, the State of New York Supreme Court passed
a consent order governing the issues of the custody and
guardianship of the minor Adithya. The Court granted joint
custody to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 and it was also H•
\
I
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about
the wher~abouts of the child. On July 28, 2005,. a separation -+
agreement was entered into between the petitioner and
respondent no. 6 relying on various provisions of Domestic
Relations Law for distribution of marital property, spouse
B maintenance and child support. As regards custody of the minor .
son Adithya and parenting time, the parties consented to the
order datecfApril 18, ·2005. On September 8, 2005, the
marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 was ...
dissolved by the State of New York Supreme Court. Child
Custody order dated April 18, 2005 was incorporated in the
"
c order. Later on a consent order was passed by the Family
Court, State of New York on June 18, 2007 whereby the.
petitioner ·and respondent no. 6 were to have legal and physical
custody of the minor child jointly. The consent order provided
that.parties shall have alternative physical custody of the mi~or
D child on a weekly basis. ')...
3. On June 28, 2007, respondent no. 6 brought minor
Adithya to India informing the petitioner that she will be residing .....
with her parents in Chennai. The petitioner approached Family
E Court, State of New York for violation of the order by respondent
no. 6 pertaining to visitation and custody of minor child. He also
filed a petition for modification of the custody order. By an order
dated August 16, 2007, the Family Court, State of New York ~
granted sole legal and physical custody of the minor Adithya
1
F to the petitioner temporarily and by a further order dated August ,.
8, 2007 ordered respondent no. 6 to hand over custody of
Master Adithya to the petitioner. It transpires that the Family
Court, State of New York has issued child abuse non-bailable
warrants against respondent no. 6.
G 4. In the month of September, 2007, the petitioner filed a
writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of Hebeas
Corpus for the production of minor son Adithya and for handing ~
over the custody with his passport to the petitioner. The
petitioner has alleged that the child has been illegally and
H
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1025
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
unlawfully detained beyond his motherland, USA in blatant A
+-- violation of orders of US Courts. .
5. In the Hebeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has
~
impleaded Union of India, States of Tamil Nadu and hra
Pradesh, Director General of Police of these two States, wife B
- Vijayashree Voora and her parents as party respondents.
6. On September 17, 2007, notice was issued to the
respondents. Subsequently the petitioner informed the Court
that on March 15, 2008, the respondent no. 6 abandoned her
residence in Dehradun and traveled in a rented car towards c
New Delhi and on the way redirected herself to Agra. The next
day s!Je-was last seen at the entrance of Agra Cantonment
Raily.lay Station. Based on that, this Court issued directions on
April 28, 2008 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and
-( Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh D
. to trace the child and produce him in this Court.
.. ;.
7. In the affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Agra on September 16, 2008, it is stated that for tracing
the minor child Adithya and respondent no. 6, a massive search E
operation was carried throl40fl out Agra and all hotels, guest
houses and other similar areas were checked but they could
).
not be found residing arJ9Where in Agra. He also stated that
through District Crime Record Bureau and all SHOs and SOs
~ of police stations of District Agra efforts have been made to
,' trace out minor child and her mother and their photographs have
F
also been published along with their description in newspapers
having wide circulation all over the country but no clue of their
whereabouts could be found.
8. Shri S.S. Srivastava, Senior Superintendent of Police, G
Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed his affidavit on, August 13,
~ 2008. He has stated:
" ... All Station House Officers of Police Stations in
Chandigarh have been issued instructions vide letter No.
H
1026 SUPRl;ME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 1057-5NCrime Branch, U.T. Chandigarh dated 3.8.2008
in which the photographs and description of Smt. -+
Vijayasree Voora and her son Adithya have been
mentioned and they have been directed to make efforts
to traGe the where(ilbouts of the above mentioned persons
B and see if they are residing in any residential area, hotel,
guest house, sarai. Though beat system all such places
in Chandigarh have been got thoroughly checked and no
such persons has been found to be residing in ~
Chandigarh. i
c A special took out notice alongwith the photographs
Smt. Vijayasree Voora and her son Aditya has been
issued vide No. 17011-17030/MOB/UT/A-lll/dated,
Chandigarh the 5.8.2008 in which directions were issued
to all SOPO'$ and Station House Officers to maintain a
D sharp look out to trace out the whereabouts of the above )--
..
mentioned woman and her son and to send their report on >i ..
weekly basis about the details of the efforts made tc trace
the above mentinned persons. A copy of the lookout notice
is annexed and ma,ked ANNEXURE R~1 • AH SHO'S of
E. Police Station in Chandigarh have submi~Ied their reports
after having thoroughly checked the area under their
jurisdiction anc;i the whereabouts of the· above mentioned
woman and her child could not be traced out in ~
Chandigarh.
1
F
On 8.8.2008 the photographs of Smt. Vijaysree
Voora and her son Adithya alongwith their description has
been got published in Times of India, one of the leading
newspapers having wide circulation all over India.
G The photographs and description of Smt. Vijaysree
Voora and her son Aditya have also been got displayed
in Bharat Sarkar Doordarshan Kendra, Chandigarh and ,.
)-
Delhi, TV Channels having coverage throughout the
.country.
H
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INOIA & ORS. 1027
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
-+- A team of police officers have been especially A
deputed from Crime Branch, Chandigarh Police for tracing
the whereabouts of Smt. Vijayasree Voora and her son
Aditya, who are regularly checking all the hotels, schools
and other places where there could be possibility of finding
the above mentioned woman and her child." B
9. Parents of respondent no. 6 have filed counter affidavit.
i .. They have totally denied any knowledge or idea about
whereabouts of respondent no. 6 and minor child. In the counter
affidavit they stated thus:
c
"11. I submit that in view of the information narrated
by her about the harassment and cruelty (mental torture)
caused by the petitioner she had left my house without ·
disclosing her whereabouts and I sincerely state that I am
-(
.not aware 'of her whereabouts and I am not able to D
... . communicate with her.
12. I state from the annexures filed particularly
annexure P-1 O Colly dated 11.a.2007 refers to that in
response to conversation with this respondent mentioned E
in E-mail in para 'I' or after. I submit that in one of the E-
mail at annexure P-10 Colly the petitioner addressed to
} Respondent No. 7 that:-
~ "I have been trying to reach Aditya for the past
several weeks and Viji has completely cut me off from the F
life of Aditya. Mrs. Voora (Your wife) informs me that she
does not know where Viji and Aditya are"
I submit that this respondent from September itself
had no knowledge or awareness of the whereabouts of G
respondent no. 6 and her minor child and that from ever
since she left, he has no information at all about her
whereabouts nor he had any contacts or connection with
this respondent, and we are not able to trace her out and
her minor child. lnspite of knowing all these facts that these
t H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A respondents are completely oblivious and in complete -t-
darkness about her whereabouts even on today .... n
10. In the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu, it is stated that the respondent no. 6 and the minor
child were not found residing at No. 47, B.N. Road (North Boag
B
Road), T. Nagar, Chennai, and on that address, the parents of
respondent no. 6 are only residing.
+-
11. The petitioner has filed a Misc. Petition (Crl. M.P.3401
of 2009) on February 23, 2009 stating therein that as per the
c Deccan Herald newspaper report dated \
February 18, 2009,
respondent no. 6 and the child were last seen in Bangalore.
They stayed at KES Lodge in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. On
February 23, 2009, accordingly, this Court directed the Director
General of Police, Karnataka and Commissioner of Police,
)o-.
D Bangalore to trace the child and produce before him this Court
on the next date. By a further order dated May 8, 2009, this. " ....
Court directed the State of Karnataka and particularly, Director
General of Police, Karnataka to take appropriate steps to trace
the chHd. A copy of this order was also sent to the Chief
E Secretary, State of Karnataka.
12. Shri S.N.Bidari, Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
city has filed his affidavit stating therein that all necessary steps -~
required in order to trace the missing child Master Adithya
Chandran and his mother Mrs. Vijayashree Voora have been
,.
F taken but without any success. In the affidavit, the details of the ·
efforts made by Karnataka P91ice have been set out thus:
"(2) It is submitted that the Police Inspector and his team
of Rajajinagar Police Station of Banagalore City visited
G KES Residency, 50th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar on
5.3.2009 and the said lady and master Adithya were not
found. On enquiry with one Shri Prabhakar, Manager of the i
said Residency, it was learnt that Smt. Vijayashree Voora,
mother of the child had left the residency alongwith the child
H on 17.2.2009 and had not returned ......
'
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1029
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
+- (3) It is submitted that the enquiry revealed that she went A
to Shiva Temple, Old Airport Road, Bangalore in a private
Qualais Vehicle from KES Residency on 17.2. 2009. The
enquiry revealed that she requested the manager for help
and she was told to come after Shivarathri festival. She
left her luggage in the temple and took shelter in the B
Manager's residence for the night. The next day i.e. on
18.2.2009, she left the temple and after two days, she
i collected her baggage. Thereafter, there is no information
+
about her whereabouts and the child. The staff continued
--J
__,.
search in several places in Banagalore City, but the child c
could not be traced.
(4) It is submitted that the Police Sub -Inspector,
Subramanaya Nagara Police station went· to Chennai on
...,,,(
4.3.2009 alongwith his staff and enquired with Smt. A.
Poomima and her husband Shri A. Ramesh Rio No. 13, D
i ~ . North Bhoug Road, G.N. Shetty Road, Chennai- 600 017.
Smt. A. Poomima sister of Vijayashree Voora said that her
sister Vijayashree Voora had married one Sathya
Narayana 18 years back. After 5 years of marriage, she
divorced her husb and again married one Dr. V. E
Ravichandra (Petitioner) in a love marriage and they have
one male child name Master Aditya Chandran. Five years
)'
back, both of them got mutual divorce in USA (where they
~ . were staying together_ and Smt. Vijashree Voora returned
from America. At that time, she came to Poomima's F
residence and she and her husband advised herand even
her father also advised her, but she refused to heed to their
advice to reconcile with her husb and left the house and
till today she had not returned to their residence.
Thereafter, her whereabouts are not known. The statement G
of Smt. A. Poomima and her husband were recorded by
~ the Police Sub-Inspector, Subramanyanagara Police
Station. The report of the Police Sub-Inspector,
Subramanyanagara Police Station is produced and
marked as ANNEXURE-R-2 AND R-2a. As per the H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (AOOL.) S.C.R..
A instructions of Police Inspector, Mahalakshmi Police -+
Station, the Police Sub-Inspector, Rajajinagar Police
Station visited Tumkur on 5.3.2009 and enquired at 1)
VARIN International Residential School, Doddahosur Gate,
Kunigal Road, Gulur Post, Tumkur 0572 118, 2) Prudence
~
B International School, Hirehalli, Next to TVS Electronics,
Tumkur, 3) Maruthi Vidya Kendra, Belagumba Road,
Tumkur, 4) Sri. Sri. Ravishankar Vidya Mandir, Belagumba t-
Road, Near TUD Office, Tumkur, 5) Sri. Siddaganga Mutt, #
Tumkur and also enquired with the c·oncerned persons of ~
I
c Samuka Residency, Sai Residency, Vigneshwara •
J
Comforts and showed the photo of the child, but no useful ~
information was obtained ......
,..
(5) It is submitted that on 5.3.2009, Police Sub-Inspector,
Srirampura Police Station visited Veda Vignan Maha ,..__ ~
D Vidya Peeta and met Mr. Narendra Lamba, the ~ ~
~
Administrator, Art of Living International Centre and
showed photo of Adithya Chandran. However, it was found
that no such persons was stayng in the Ashram ......
E (6) It is submitted that on 6.3.2009, the Poilice Sub-
Inspector, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bangalore
alongwith staff visited Shri Sathya Sai Gokulam at
i
Kadugodi, Bangalore District, in search of missing boy
and enquired with Mr. Srinivas, Custodian of Ashram. It 1
F was reported that no such persons was staying in the 'i
Ashrama. The PSI also visited Sir. Sathya Sai Institute of
Medical Sciences, Whitefield and met Mr.Mohan Das, Sr.
Personnel Officer and PRO who informed th~t no such
persons,, by name Smt. Vijayashree Voora or Master
Aditya was admitted in the Hospital. The report of the
G
Police Sub-Inspector, Mahalakshmi layout, Police Station,
~·
is produced and marked as Annexure-R5. The Asstt.
Commissioner of Police, City Crime Record Bureau,
Office of the Comissioner of Police, Infantry Road,
Bangalore was instructed on 18.3.2009 to get the photo
H
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1031
[R.M. LODHA, J.)
of Aditya Chandra published in the Criminal Intelligence A
Gazette r_equesting all the concerned to trace the missing
child. The Addi. Director General of Police, State Crime
Record Bureau, Bangalore was also requested to publish
the photograph of Master Aditya Chandran in 'Talash' and
to transmit the said information to all the Police Stations B
in the State and to trace the said missing boy as ~arly as
possible.
(7) The Respondent further submits that City crime Record
Bureau on 31.3.2009 sent letter to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, State Crime Record Bureau to publish C
the details of the missing persons in criminal Intelligence
Gazette.
(8) The Respondent further submits that on 16.4.2009 the
Police Inspector, Rajajinagar Police Station, wrote a letter 0
to the State Crime Record Bureau, Bangalore to verify and
compare the particulars of the missing child in the Talcsh
record and on comparison a nil report was sent to
Rajajinagar Police Station on 17.4.2009. On 16.4.2009 the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malleshwaram, E
Bangalore wrote letter to the Commissioner of Police,
Bangalore requesting for publication of the missing child
Master Adithya Chandran in Kannada and English "daily
news pap,ers". Further he also requested the
Commissioner of Police to send the details to all the F
District superintendents of Police and Commissioners of
Police of Hubli - Dharwad, Mysore and Railway
Superintendent of Police. Further, the Asstt. Commissioner
of Police. Malleshwaram, Bangalore, wrote letter to
Commissioner of Police with a request to address a letter G
to Doordarshan to Broadcast the particulars of the missing
child in Doordarshan. Deputy Commissioner of Police
North Divilsion, Bangalore City had sent e-mails to all
Commissioners of Police, all Range Inspectors General of
Police, all Superintendents of Police including Railways all H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A over Karnataka State requesting them to look out for the -. ...._
missing child. An e-mail is also sent to the Director,
National Crime Record Bureau, New Delhi requesting for
look out of the missing child .....
(9) The respondent further submits that the Assistant
B
Commissioner of Police, MaUeshwaram wrote a letter.to
All India Radio, with a request to Broadcast the particulars
of the missing child on air. .. . .. . "1
f
(10) The respondent further submits that on 18.4.2009 the
c Public Relation Officer in the Cadre of Deputy
Commissioner of Police in the office of Commissioner of
Police released press note to all the Electronic Media and
Print media requesting for publication of the particulars of
the missing child Master Adithya Chandran on Air. The
D report regarding the Broadcast of the particulars of the '.>-
missing child in Doordarshan is also received ....... ..., ~
(11) It is also further ~ubmitted that on 16.4.2009 itself the
details of the missing child were uploaded on Internet on
Karnataka State Police web page. The copy of the Web
E
page is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-
R20. It is also relevant to submit that all relevant steps are
taken to carry out the upload of the particulars of the
l
missing child Master Adhitya Chandran on National Crime
Record Bureau with a request to send information to all 1
F the state and Union Territory and forward the information
if any obtained in this regard to the Commission of Police,
Bangalore.
(12) It is further submitted that the Police officials.attached -
G to Rajajinagar Police Station sent look out notices to
Bangalore International Airport Authorities, Railway Station
and KSRTC Bus Stand to keep a look out for the missing ~
child ....... n
13. From the narration of aforesaid facts, it is abundantly
H
V. RAVI CHANDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1033
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
~-
clear that despite efforts made by police officers and officials A
of different States such as Senior Superintendent of Police,
• Agra, Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. of Chandigarh,
Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Director General of
Police, Karnataka and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
City, the minor child Adithya and respondent no. 6 could not 8
be traced and their whereabouts co4ld not be found. It is almost
two years sinc;e1he notice was issued by this Court but the child
'+' could not be produced. RespondeQt no. 6 is said to be mentally
+ unstable and running round with the child from one State to
another. In the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances such c
as the present one, we are of the view that Central Investigating
Agency i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation may be assigned
the task of tracing minor Adithya Chandran and his production
before this Court. This has become all the more necessary for
the protection of health and safety of minor and because the D
--<
police authorities of various States are clueless about the
..... whereabouts of respondent no. 6 who has been moving with
', the child from one State to another.
14. We, accordingly, direct the registry of this Court to write
a letter to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation E
requesting him to trace minor Adithya Chandran. For the said
purpose, he and the officer nominated by him will enjoy all the
J powers of Police Officer carrying out search and issue non-
~
bailable warrants, if necessary, and pick up minor Adithya
Chandran wherever he is found without interference from any F
one and to produce him before this Court with his report.
15. Let the matter come up before the Court after six weeks
.
~ or earlier if the minor child Adithya Chandran is traced by the
Central Bureau of Investigation and produced before this Court.
G
~
R.P. Matter adjourned.
-i
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "habeas corpus"Sign in to search