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 --
