New Delhi, March 26: An NRI woman today urged the Supreme Court to rethink the Indian courts’ hands-off approach to custody battles with estranged husbands.

Indian courts have, of late, been refusing to entertain their petitions on the ground that they lack the jurisdiction to deal with such cases, especially where the mother and the child are citizens of other countries.

Ruchi Majoo, a US citizen, was allowed custody of her son, Khush, 9, by a Delhi district court. However, on appeal, Delhi High Court held on March 8 that the district court had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Additional solicitor-general Indira Jaisingh, who appeared for Ruchi with special permission from the government, argued that Indian courts had the jurisdiction to deal with such cases in view of the fact that the couple had married in India according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

After marriage, they shifted to the US where the child was born. Later, her husband Sanjeev got a divorce from a US court and remarried, Jaisingh said.

“She was subjected to extreme cruelty by her husband. Although he had initially consented to her moving to India and taking the child along with her, he later slapped a case of abduction against her,” she said.

Indian courts cannot now say they have no jurisdiction over such matters, she contended. “For jurisdiction, citizenship is irrelevant, only residence is relevant,” she argued. Ruchi has since settled in India with her child.

But now, she stands to lose custody of the child as a US court had got an Interpol red corner notice issued against her for illegally taking the child out of the country, Jaisingh said, adding this was not an isolated case. Thousands of such women abroad are similarly affected after their husbands divorce them and force them to leave for India.

They land up in India with their children, only to be turned away by courts here. The court granted Ruchi’s request for status quo regarding the custody of the child till the case was on, and fixed April 4 as the next date of hearing.

Ruchi’s petition alleged that her husband had illicit relationships and often assaulted her. He also did not provide money for the education of the child or her day-to-day expenses.

Khush was born on March 24, 2001, but as Ruchi’s husband’s errant ways continued, Ruchireturned to India with his consent.

The child started attending school in Delhi. However, Sanjeev later initiated custody proceedings in a US court accusing her of abducting the child to India.

Ruchi then filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking the child’s custody. The district court granted it but the order was overturned by the high court. Her petition contended that the high court’s decision would have serious consequences on cases involving custody of persons of Indian origin.

“Courts in India ought to entertain a petition at the instance of a deserted mother residing in India as it would be impossible for her to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in the US,” Ruchi said.

She urged the Supreme Court to permit wives of Indian origin deserted in a foreign country to have access to Indian courts, should they decide to return to their country of origin to seek justice.

Ruchi pointed out that she had been staying in India for the last two years and, being a resident of this country, came under the jurisdiction of Indian courts.