E-Paper
Supreme Court slams Dubai court’s travel ban on child, calls it ‘atrocious’
The court made the observations while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Prince Richard, a Ghana national, who resides in Dubai
The Supreme Court has strongly criticised a Dubai court’s travel ban on a child amid a parental dispute, calling the foreign court’s ruling “atrocious,” and a violation of human rights, akin to house arrest.
While hearing a case related to a child’s custody earlier this week, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh questioned how the Dubai court had jurisdiction in the matter when the child’s custody case was already pending before a family court in Bengaluru.
The court made the observations while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Prince Richard, a Ghana national, who resides in Dubai, seeking custody of his minor son.
The petitioner’s counsel told the Supreme Court Richard’s ex-wife had left Dubai with their son without informing him and had brought the child to Bengaluru, despite an existing order from a Dubai court imposing a travel ban on the child. He also told the apex court that in 2022, the Dubai court had granted the child’s custody to Richard based on Sharia law.
The Supreme Court took a strong exception to the submission.
The bench noted that Richard and his wife, who was an Indian national, were both Christians and were married under the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969. It asked how then the Sharia law was applicable to their case.
It also took note of the submissions made by Richard’s estranged wife before the Karnataka High Court that she had been subjected to physical and mental abuse and that she had been forced to leave Dubai with the child as a consequence. The wife had told the Karnataka HC that Richard had coerced her into withdrawing her divorce petition in exchange of revoking the travel ban on their son.
The Supreme Court said that the travel ban was a clear weapon of coercion against the wife and it was akin to keeping her in confinement.
“You secured an order because those courts are well known for passing this kind of atrocious orders. Any court believing firmly in human rights, civil rights will not pass this order that you and child are restrained from moving,” the Supreme Court said.
It also said that the Karnataka high court had been right in observing that the Bengaluru family court must adjudicate upon the pending child custody case to determine the child’s best interest.
The Supreme Court said it will hear the matter further on April 28 to consider granting temporary visitation rights to Richard in the interim. He was allowed to serve notice on his petition to his ex-wife to enable her file a response.
