The Supreme Court, however, maintained that the welfare of the child was most important and said that the Karnataka High Court was right in its decision to allow the local family court in India to deal with the matter.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has come down strongly on an order passed by a Dubai court that restricted the travel of a minor child in a matrimonial dispute. The top court called the travel ban “atrocious” and a “violation of human rights”, and stated that such restrictions were akin to “house arrest.”
ALSO READ: The Interest of the Minor Child is Paramount: Supreme Court Ruling in Custody Case
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father, a citizen of Ghana residing in Dubai, seeking custody and visitation rights for his son.
The bench has issued a notice on April 17, 2025, for a limited purpose of granting visitation rights to the father.
“Issue notice for the limited purpose of granting visitation rights to the petitioner along with other ancillary reliefs, returnable on April 28, 2025,” the bench ordered.
During the hearing, the judges made strong observations on the Dubai court’s travel ban. They said such a ban, imposed during a matrimonial dispute, was unacceptable and amounted to unlawful confinement of the child.
“It was alleged that she (wife) was virtually being held in confinement. You secured an ‘atrocious’ order which was in complete violation of human rights. How can a court issue a travel ban on a child in a matrimonial dispute?”, Justice Surya Kant asked senior advocate Nikhil Goel, who appeared for the petitioner father.
The bench further stated:
“Any court which believes in human rights would not like to pass any such order as this would amount to putting someone in house arrest without holding them guilty.”
The Supreme Court also raised questions about the jurisdiction of the Dubai family court, especially when both husband and wife were Christians and not governed by Shariah law. The couple was married under the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969 at the Consulate General of India in Dubai.
Advocate Goel submitted that the couple lived in Dubai since their marriage on April 19, 2018, and continued to reside there until 2021, after which the wife left for India with the child. The father accused his estranged wife, a resident of Bengaluru, of illegally taking the child away from Dubai to India, in violation of the Dubai court’s order.
The Supreme Court, however, maintained that the welfare of the child was most important and said that the Karnataka High Court was right in its decision to allow the local family court in India to deal with the matter.
The husband has challenged the High Court’s order dated December 10, which dismissed his habeas corpus petition. He had approached the High Court requesting that the authorities produce the child and hand over custody to him.
The wife, on her part, denied any act of absconding or evading court orders. She argued that she had to travel to Muscat and later to India due to severe physical, emotional, and psychological abuse by her husband. She claimed this abuse also affected their child.
She also alleged that her husband had imposed an unlawful travel ban on their son. She contended that the Dubai court’s judgment, which granted custody to the husband, was based on Shariah law, which should not apply to them as they were Christians married under the Foreign Marriage Act.
Case Name – X vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
