Sushma Devi and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar and ors.

.....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.....khan, j.1. petitioner is the wife of one dilbag singh who was working with respondents 1 & 2 and was on board truck no. hr 56 1536 from delhi to agra on 25.1.2001 when he was reported missing. she says her brother-in-law (petitioner no. 4) had lodged a complaint with sho p.s. vasant kunj alleging kidnapping and murder of her husband by respondent 1 & 2 with whom he was employed on rs. 1,000/- per month but no action was taken in the matter. she wants cbi to locate her husband, to investigate into the matter and to prosecute respondents 1 & 2 and a compensation of rs. 50 lacs. 2. status report filed by official respondents shows that one amit kumar, s/o respondent no. 1 had also filed a complaint in this regard and no inquiry it was found that p.s. gursarai (u.p.) had recovered the vehicle which was later released to the owner. pursuant thereto petitioner no. 4 (complainant) was also advised to lodge a report there. the counter filed by these respondents later, however, states that subsequently fir no. 440/2001 was registered in the matter and it was found on investigation that truck driver rajesh kumar @ gutka had committed dilbag singh's murder along with one ram khiladi and had thrown his body in the fields at village saidalpur. one blanket of the deceased was also recovered from his house and thebody was cremated as unclaimed by p.s. sirsa ganj. petitioners were also called to identify the body. accused rajesh kumar was arrested but ram khiladi was still at large. thereafter, challan was also presented in the caseunder sections 365/302/201/34 ipc on 8.1.2001 which waspending before the competent criminal court. 3. in this view of the matter, reliefs prayed for bypetitioners are not liable to be granted. 4. petition is accordingly dismissed.