Smt. Manbhar Devi Vs. Shri Surinder Kumar and Another

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........and further putting any kind of goods/articles in stairs or in the passage of the property. she also sought ad-interim relief which was granted to her by order dated 14.1.1997 and whereby respondents were restrained from placing any kind of goods/articles in the staircase or passage.2. respondents look appeal against this (mca no.60/97) and submitted in their written statement that they used to display their goods in the disputed passage for the last two years or so which was necessary for the use of their tenanted shops and without this their business will suffer. upon this appellate court evolved a via media to dispose of respondents' application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 cpc by restraining appellant from putting ghettos of their articles in the main passage but allowing them to display their articles just out side the shop.3. in my view this was a reasonable arrangement evolved by appellate court pending adjudication of respondents' suit as this was the appropriate way to save the interest of both parties. there is no dispute that passage is a common passage which could be used by all tenants including the respondents who had, however, no right to obstruct it. but at the same time they could be allowed such use of it which was necessary for the use of their tenanted premises. thereforee, appellate court had done well to pass the balanced order which protected the interest of all concerned pending adjudication of rival claims in petitioner's suit. the order admits of no interference in revision jurisdiction. revision petition is accordingly dismissed.