Little one Custody: SC Permits CBI to Safe Issuance of Custody Discover Towards Egyptian Nationwide – Jammu Kashmir Newest Information | tourism

NEW DELHI, April 6:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the CBI to ensure that a notice be issued in respect of an Egyptian national who took his minor son to his home country in defiance of court orders, after the agency said it was necessary to to determine their whereabouts.
The Supreme Court last month ordered the CBI to pursue issuing a Red Corner Notice against the man.
A bank led by Judge DY Chandrachud was informed by Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Attorney General (ASG) that it would be appropriate to issue a blue notice for the man and a yellow notice for the minor as a missing child .
While a blue alert is issued to gather additional information about an individual’s identity, location, or activities in connection with a crime, a yellow alert is issued to assist in the search for a missing person, often a minor.
“This will allow us to establish their location and once the location is established, extradition efforts can be made through diplomatic channels,” said the bank’s ASG, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant, who are the judges said they would allow the investigative body to do so and released the matter for further hearing on July 12.
It found that under the previous order, the ASG filed that the CBI, with the court’s approval, will ensure that proper notices are issued in respect of both the man and the minor child.
“We consider it appropriate to permit the CBI to do so, given that the minor child has been removed from the jurisdiction of the competent court in India in contravention of the court’s instructions,” the Chamber said.
The CBI was said to coordinate with Interpol to issue appropriate communications.
During last month’s hearing of the matter, the Supreme Court brought in CBI as a party to the case after efforts to get Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem to appear in court failed.
The bank had said that not only would Kassem’s failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court give rise to a claim in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, but moreover “this Court needs to take serious note of the conduct of the First Defendant (Kassem), who took away the child in order to preclude the exercise of the jurisdiction of that court and the remedies available to the petitioners.”
Attorney Charu Ambwani, who appeared on behalf of the child’s maternal aunt and grandmother, had told the court that Kassem had disregarded the court by not following orders.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s order on a petition by Kassem, the father of a minor child born on February 3, 2019.
The appeal was brought by the child’s maternal aunt and grandmother to the Apex Court.
According to the complaint, the sister of the first petitioner and the daughter of the second petitioner Kassem had married in August 2014 under the auspices of the Egyptian Embassy in Myanmar.
The bank had previously noted that the marriage was registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 17 October 2014 and both Kassem and the first petitioner’s late sister were working in the same Mumbai office in November 2007 and their relationship eventually ended with that they got married.
It had stated: “The sister of the first petitioner died on April 17, 2019, shortly after the birth of the child. From birth the child was in the care of the applicants until the High Court order allowed the first defendant to take the child with him”.
Kassem later filed an application for a detention review on November 23, 2019 and initially issued an interim order by the Higher Court on December 13, 2019, according to which provisional custody of the child was to be transferred to Kassem until January 6, 2020.
In a judgment dated January 30, 2020, the High Court granted the habeas corpus motion and issued a number of instructions, such as handing over provisional custody to Kassem.
It had ordered Kassem to maintain custody of the child in Pune, preferably near the home of the child’s maternal aunt, for eight weeks.
It said Kassem could take the child to his workplace in Abu Dhabi after March 27, 2020 and should bring the child to Pune at least four times a year.
The complaint alleged that on February 16, 2020, Kassem received an email saying he had taken the child to Egypt and that instructions had since been broken to take the child to India four times a year bring to. (PTI)