E-Paper
Covid-19 no ground to relocate abroad a child involved in custody battle: Bombay HC
The Bombay high court was hearing the petition of a woman, a person of Indian origin, engaged in a legal battle with her estranged husband, to be allowed to relocate her minor son to Bangkok
The Bombay high court (HC) has refused to accept that the spread of coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic in the country is a valid ground to allow a Thai national and a person of Indian origin (PIO), who is engaged in a legal battle with her estranged husband, to relocate her son (12) to Bangkok.
“This ground of Covid-19 pandemic for relocation does not appeal to us at all,” said the two-member HC division bench, comprising Justices Amjad Sayed and Abhay Abuja, on October 1, while dismissing the petition filed by the woman, who is married to a Mumbaikar.
The woman, who has been estranged from her husband since 2012, had moved the HC in June, seeking urgent orders to allow her to relocate her son to Bangkok until the time the petition for his custody was decided by the family court at Bandra.
The petitioner had contended that “in view of the rapid spread of Covid-19 pandemic in India, we (the mother and the son) urgently want to relocate to our home country, Thailand, where my parents live, until the time the family court at Bandra decides on my son’s custody”.
She had stated that she and her son were leading a lonely life in India without any basic medical and financial assistance, maintenance and insurance.
She had claimed that the Covid-19 curve had flattened in Thailand and the South-east Asian country had become “one of the safest places on the earth amid the pandemic crises”.
She had drawn a parallel between the viral outbreak in her native Thailand and India and also had given the example of June 18 in a bid to bolster her argument.
She had pointed out that on that day Thailand had reported 3,290 Covid-19 and 58 deaths. On the contrary, India had reported 1.44 million and 32,063 Covid-19 cases and deaths, respectively, on the same day, she had added.
However, the contentions failed to impress upon the court.
The bench noted that the boy is studying in a reputed international school in Mumbai. “In our view, it would not be proper to disrupt the studies of the boy in the middle of the academic year, classes of which are being conducted online,” said the bench.
The bench also thought it improper to uproot the teenager at this stage in his life because he has lived in Mumbai all along.
The bench also rejected the petitioner’s contention that courts had allowed her nine times earlier to travel to Thailand along with her son.
It said previous concessions would not work in her favour. “It certainly cannot be equated to relocating the boy to Bangkok pending disposal of the Bandra family court’s proceedings,” it added.
