Supreme Court slams Dubai court’s child travel ban as violative of liberty and rights.
Case in News
SC questions foreign court’s travel ban order in the matters of habeas corpus and child custody.
Case Overview
Case Name – X vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
The Supreme Court of India bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh recently came across with a plea of habeas corpus filed by a Ghanaian national seeking custody of his minor son . The matter is related to a foreign court’s travel ban order passed by a Dubai court which was challenged as violative of fundamental and human rights as provided under the Constitution . The petition stemmed from a matrimonial dispute where the mother, an Indian citizen returned to India with the child between allegations of abuse .
Key Aspects
- Marriage was solemnized in 2018 under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969.
- Decree of divorce and custody order passed by a Dubai Family Court in 2022 .
- The father filed a petition of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution before the Karnataka High Court .
- The High Court declined relief by citing pending custody proceedings in a family court and the safe custody of the child with the mother.
- Key issues included enforceability of foreign court orders in India, child welfare and parental rights .
Legal Insights
- Article 226 of the Constitution – Scope of habeas corpus in disputes relating to custody .
- Section 13 CPC – Enforceability of foreign judgments in Indian courts .
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Paramountcy of the welfare of child in matters of Custody .
- Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 – Governs marriages of Indian nationals abroad .
- Violation of Article 21 of Constitution– Right to life and personal liberty questioned regarding solitary confinement imposed by the travel ban.
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India strongly condemned the foreign court’s travel ban stating it “atrocious” and similar to “house arrest” and “solitary confinement”. It stressed that no court committed to civil and human rights could pass such an order. While refusing to acknowledge the foreign decree blindly the Court issued a limited notice for visitation rights and affirmed the direction of Karnataka High Court to let the Family Court decide the child’s best interests in line with Indian law.
Source
