Scribd
Upload
202 views7 pages

PIL Presentation

Marggarate Pulparampil v. Dr. Chacko Pulparampil concerned a child custody dispute. The petitioner and respondent were married in Germany and had two children there, but separated. The respondent took the children to India without permission. The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in India seeking return of the children. The court ruled it had jurisdiction but recognized the substantial connection of the family to Germany, so custody should be decided in German courts according to German law. It allowed the habeas corpus writ and return of the children to the petitioner in Germany.

Uploaded by

Prashant Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
202 views7 pages

PIL Presentation

Marggarate Pulparampil v. Dr. Chacko Pulparampil concerned a child custody dispute. The petitioner and respondent were married in Germany and had two children there, but separated. The respondent took the children to India without permission. The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in India seeking return of the children. The court ruled it had jurisdiction but recognized the substantial connection of the family to Germany, so custody should be decided in German courts according to German law. It allowed the habeas corpus writ and return of the children to the petitioner in Germany.

Uploaded by

Prashant Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 7

Case Analysis on

Marggarate Pulparampil
v.
Dr. Chacko Pulparampil
(AIR 1970 Ker 1)
Background of the Case
1. Parties:
 Petitioner - Marggarate Pulparampil
 Respondent – Dr. Chacko Pulparampil et al.

2. Year: 1970
3. Nature of Dispute: Child Custody
4. Name of the Court: Kerala High Court
Facts of the Case
 The petitioner was married to the respondent in
Germany in 1963 as per ecclesiastical rites and were
settled in Germany.
 The petitioner (wife) was a German national while the
1st respondent was an Indian national.
 Two children were born in 1964 and 1966 respectively.
 Soon, differences arose between them which led to
their separation and the children were staying with
the mother and the father had the access to see the
children as per terms decided mutually.
Continued..
 The court also ordered the husband-respondent for
maintenance to the wife for upkeep of the children.
 One day, the respondent took the children out and
instead of returning them to their mother, as per the
terms, he flew them to India to never come back.
 The respondent did not inform the petitioner even
after reaching India.
Continued..
 After making frantic enquiries, the mother moved a
petition in the appellate court of Germany, where
the divorce matter was pending, for the custody of
the child and obtained an order where the father was
ordered to hand over the children to the mother.

 But the father was in India so the order of the German


court was not complied with.

 The wife, a year later, came to India and filed a habeas


corpus petition with the Kerala High Court U/A 226 of
the Indian Constitution for the custody of the
children.
Issue
 Will the Indian Court have the jurisdiction to try the
case since the dispute happened in Germany?
 Will the writ of habeas corpus filed by the mother be
allowed since the mother was a foreign national?
Judgement
 The petitioner (wife) was a German national whereas the respondent
(husband) was domiciled in India.
 According to the canons of PIL, the children and wife will have the
father’s domicile, which in this case is Indian.
 And hence, the court will have the jurisdiction to try the case.
 The court held that since the petitioner and the children were a
resident of Germany, they had a ‘real and substantial connection’ with
Germany and hence shifted the jurisdiction to German court to pass
the decree for divorce or custody of the children.
 The court also recognized the availability of the remedy of writ of
habeas corpus to claim custody of the child who has been illegally
removed from the custody of the mother and allowed the child to be
moved back to Germany for the interest of the children.

You might also like