Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 1

CNR MHMM19000502201907 Dec 2020
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 1 · 07 Dec 2020 · CNR MHMM190005022019

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. NO. 12/DV/2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
66TH COURT ANDHERI MUMBAI
C.C. NO. 12/DV/2019
Kadambini Pushkar Gupte ... Aggrieved person
v/s.
Pushkar Gupte & Ors. ... Respondents
ORDER BELOW EXH.16
1. This is an application filed by aggrieved person for
permission to take the minor child Ayaan with her to Phillippins
country. It is contended on behalf of aggrieved person that she filed
main petition against respondents for various reliefs as per provisions of
The Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act. Matter was
referred for mediation. She got an opportunity to travel abroad through
her present company. Therefore, she cannot keep her minor son Ayaan
alone in India. She does not want to risk the health of minor child. At
her metrimonial place only her husband and her father-in-law are
residing. Her husband used to travel outside Mumbai. Therefore, she
cannot keep the child with the maid. Said child is very closed to her.
Offer letter from the company at Phillippins is very much necessary for
the future prospectus of her. Being mother she has to lookafter her
minor son. Considering age of minor and his necessities aggrieved
person wants to travel with him at overseas. She is ready to keep minor
son in touch with respond through Skype or other video calling
facilities. She will visit India after 4 to 5 months. She will not take any
objection to have a access with a minor child in any situation. There is
no one to lookafter the minor child at her matrimonial place. She is
ready to furnish her travel and stay details. Finally, aggrieved person
requested for grant of application.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 C.C. NO. 12/DV/2019
2. Respondent no.1 resisted the application by filing his say at
Exh.17. He denied almost all the averments of the applications. It is
further contended on behalf of respondent no.1 that present application
is filed with a view to pressurize and harass him by making unwanted
demands. Aggrieved person wants to keep away the legitimate son of
respondent no.1 from him. She has not considered age, future
prospectus, academic loss and social relationship of minor son
especially with respondent no.1. She has not considered the future risk
of minor son Ayaan in this pandemic situation.
3. It is further contended on behalf of respondent no.1 that
Phillippins is a totally new place. No any other either relatives or friends
are residing there. Master Ayaan will feel completely lonely in the said
country at his tender age in the current pandemic situation. During
office hours aggrieved person shall have no option but to keep master
Ayaan at home alone or with unknown or stranger person. There is vast
difference in between India and Phillippins education system. It is not
advisable to travel and stay in other country in the current pandemic
situation. She has not mentioned her job tenure at Phillippins. There
might be a possibility of obtaining or applying citizenship of Phillippins
at the hands of aggrieved person for herself and her son. Respondent is
ready to take custody of master Ayaan in absence of aggrieved person.
He is also ready for video conferencing access. Aggrieved person denied
the request to take master Ayaan with their family members for
Kuldaiwat at Ekvira Devi Temple at Lonavala. Now she is requesting to
take master Ayaan to Foreign Country with her. Finally, respondent no.1
requested for rejection of the application.
4. After hearing the submissions of rival parties, I have gone
through the record and proceedings of the present matter. Present
petition is filed for the various reliefs as per the provisions of The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. The paramount
-- 2 of 4 --
3 C.C. NO. 12/DV/2019
interest of minor is necessary to be considered while deciding the
present application. The minor master Ayaan is of 10 years old. He is
minor. He is studying at Lilavatibai Poddar High School, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai. Aggrieved person, respondent no.1 and 2 and minor master
Ayaan are residing under one roof. This fact is not in dispute.
Respondent no.1 and 2 can take care of minor master Ayaan in absence
of aggrieved person. She can access via video conferencing with her
child.
5. Covid-19 Pandemic is going on. It is not still over.
Therefore, travelling to overseas is hazardous to the health of minor
master Ayaan during this pandemic situation. As per section 21 of The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, court can grant
temporary custody of minor child. This section does not empower court
to grant permission to travel abroad with minor child. No any provision
is pointed out by the Ld. Advocate of aggrieved person empowering this
court to grant such permission.
6. If permission is granted as sought then, minor son will loss
his academic year. There is no any contention in respect of educational
arrangement of minor master Ayaan at Phillippins mentioned in the
application. Admittedly, aggrieved person is going to country Phillippins
for her job purpose. She has not mentioned anything about the looking
after of master Ayaan at Phillipins in her application. This court has talk
with mast Ayaan via video conferencing on google meet on the email of
this court. He told that his father is not giving much time to him.
Therefore, he wants to go with his mother.
7. Master Ayaan is minor and of tender age. From the
conversation with master Ayaan it appears that, he has more
attachment with his mother than his father. However, in view of above
discussion, considering the Covid-19 pandemic situation and tender age
of master Ayaan, I am of humble opinion that it is not desirable to grant
-- 3 of 4 --
4 C.C. NO. 12/DV/2019
permission in favour of aggrieved person to take the minor child Ayaan
with her to the country Phillippins. In the result, I find no force and
substance in the argument on behalf of aggrieved person. In view of this
matter, I proceed to pass following order:
O R D E R
1. Application stands rejected.
2. Matter is expediated.
3. Parties to note.
Date : 07/12/2020 (Bhagawat T. Zirape)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.