In a strongly worded observation, the Supreme Court of India has sharply criticised a Dubai court’s order imposing a travel ban on a minor child amid a parental custody dispute, calling the foreign ruling “atrocious” and equating it to a form of house arrest that violates basic human rights.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made the remarks earlier this week while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Prince Richard, a Ghanaian national residing in Dubai, who sought custody of his minor son currently residing in Bengaluru, India.
Richard informed the Court that his ex-wife, an Indian national, had taken their child to Bengaluru without his knowledge, allegedly violating a travel ban imposed by a Dubai court in 2022, which had also awarded him custody under Sharia law.
The Supreme Court, however, questioned the very basis of the Dubai court’s order. “How is Sharia law applicable to a marriage solemnised under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, between two Christians?” the bench asked, noting that both Richard and his ex-wife are Christians and were married under Indian law.
Taking exception to the Dubai court’s order, the Supreme Court observed, “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 Court further noted that Richard’s ex-wife had told the Karnataka High Court that she had suffered physical and mental abuse in Dubai and was forced to flee with the child. It was also submitted that she had been compelled to withdraw her divorce petition in exchange for the lifting of the child’s travel ban.
Calling the travel ban “a clear weapon of coercion,” the Supreme Court said it was “akin to keeping her in confinement.”
The bench reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru family court to decide the child’s custody matter, stating that the Karnataka High Court had rightly held that the Indian court must determine what is in the best interest of the child.
The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on April 28, when it will consider granting temporary visitation rights to Richard. Meanwhile, the Court has permitted Richard to serve notice of the proceedings on his ex-wife so she may file her response.
