A Pakistani citizen request for custody of his 5-year-old child from his wife, who had taken the boy to India, was denied by the Gujarat High Court. HC stated that the applicant had nothing to demonstrate that the child’s custody with the mother was unlawful, other than the basic claim regarding nationality, culture and values.
After getting married in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2019, the couple had a child the following year. The woman, who holds a Pakistani passport, arrived in India with her child on a tourist visa on September 23. Using power of attorney, the woman’s husband filed petition in HC, alleging that she had illegally moved their son to India and was residing at her maternal home in Surat. After the woman arrived in India, she even stopped communicating with her husband, while he is worried about the child’s welfare as his wife hinted that she might not return to Pakistan in future.
According to his appeal, the boy was denied his cultural values, as he is in a foreign nation. The father has filled a habeas corpus petition, that his lawyer submitted, because he believed that his child was being held in a force confinement while being kept in isolation in a foreign country.
According to HC, on October 15, the petitioner appeared before a Karachi family court to request custody of his son under the terms of the Guardian and Wards Act. A notice was sent to the wife, asking her to respond by November 9; if she didn’t the matter would be decided ex parte. Since the woman was in India, he couldn’t serve court notice on her. Additionally, the child’s visa was valid up to November 6 only.
The lawyer argued that the representations were made to various officials, including the Surat police chief, to find out the child’s whereabouts and bring him back to Pakistan. The state government’s lawyer contested the petition, arguing that since the boy was in hands of her biological mother, it could not be considered illegal confinement. While the husband doesn’t have any court orders in his favor.
After hearing the case, the bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Sanjeev Thakar, stated, “The minor is in the custody of his mother and hence, it is difficult to believe that the welfare and the best interest of the child is at stake. The court has repeatedly requested the learned advocate to substantiate the claim of illegal detention or the welfare and interest. However, the learned advocate could not point out, except the bare assertion about nationality, culture, and values. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the minor has been illegally detained cannot be accepted”.
