New Delhi, October 23, 2005
PTI
Shocked over a decision of a US Court virtually
nullifying its order, the Supreme Court has asked
the Solicitor General G E Vahanvati to explore whether
it is possible through diplomatic channels to ensure
that orders of the apex court are not disregarded
by courts of another country.
The apex court sought the assistance of the solicitor
general on the issue as a US Family court did not
allow the great grandchildren of former Andhra Pradesh
Chief Minister N T Rama Rao to be taken to India as
per its order.
"It needs no emphasis that the effect of the
court's order, more particularly of a superior court,
and its enforceability should not be left to be decided
by the perception of the court of another country,"
a Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat observed
on Friday asking Vahanvati to look into the matter
personally.
Vahanvati said he would very soon send a letter to
Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on the concern of the
court.
The apex court had directed that the children be
produced before it to ascertain their views on the
custody but a Family Court in New York refused to
send them to India.
NTR's son Nandamuri Jaykrishna and his wife Padmaja
are seeking custody of their grandchildren, sons of
their daughter Kumudini who had committed suicide
in October 2000.
A court in Chennai had convicted her NRI husband
Srinath Prasad for abetting the death and had sentenced
him to 10 years imprisonment. He has appealed against
the verdict.
Kumudini's parents, after losing the custody battle
in the apex court in 2001, approached the lower court
alleging that their grandsons were not safe with the
persons who allegedly forced their mother to commit
suicide.
Srinath has challenged before the SC the Andhra Pradesh
High Court order asking the lower court to adjudicate
the matter. The apex court had on March 28 directed
the father of the children to produce them in judge's
chamber.
Srinath had moved the Family Court in New York for
permission to take his two minor sons to India but
his plea was opposed by the law guardian of the children.
After scrutinising the apex court order in this regard,
the Family Court had directed Srinath not to produce
the minor children before the Supreme Court.
The US Court had said it was not in the best interest
of the children that "they not be thrust into
a lawsuit commenced for their custody by maternal
relatives in India and that to do so would place the
children's stability and emotional health at risk".
Though the apex court has initiated contempt proceedings
for not producing the children, it has expressed serious
concern over such development.
"If such a situation is permitted to continue,
it would have large ramifications not only so far
as this case is concerned but also other cases,"
the Bench observed and said "in essence, what
transpires is that the court in US has virtually rendered
our order inoperative".
New York, June 25, 2004
The State of New York, f amily Court of in Manhattan
on June 10 granted joint legal and physical custody
of N.T. Rama Rao's great-grandchildren to their father
Srinath Prasad and their paternal grandmother.
Judge George L. Jurow also ruled that the children,
Jai Viraj Prasad (9) and Neal Krishna Prasad (7),
were not be required to appear before the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
The f amily Court order said: New York is the home
state and domicile of the children, who are both citizens
of the United States, and no other court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the children. The children
had been residing in New York with their father Srinath
Prasad Rajavasireddi after their mother, Kumidini,
committed suicide in 2000. Following that, the maternal
grandparents,
N.T. Rama Rao's son Nandamuri
Jayakrishna and his wife N. Padmaja, initiated
legal proceedings in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Hyderabad to take legal custody of the children
from Srinath Prasad. Andhra Pradesh High Court had
directed that the children be produced before the
court on June 14, 2004, ?for the purpose of ascertaining
the views of the children? in connection with the
pending suit. Judge Jurow also said the order was
made ?without prejudice to any proceeding that the
said maternal relatives of the children may choose
to commence in this court for custody of the children.?
