Court orders repatriation of child from Singapore


Mother accuses husband of having taken the child away without her consent

The Madras High Court Bench here has directed the Union Ministry of External Affairs to take steps for repatriating a 11-month-old baby boy who was taken away to Singapore by his father without the consent of his dentist-mother.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S. Rajeswaran and Justice M. Vijayaraghavan ordered that the baby as well as his father should be sent back home with the assistance of the Indian High Commission in Singapore and produced before the court on July 30.

The interim orders were passed in a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother through her counsel Veera Kathiravan who alleged that his client’s husband, a Singapore citizen of Indian origin, had taken the child away with the help of forged documents following a domestic dispute between the couple.

According to him, the couple got married in India on May 1, 2009 and flew to Singapore within a month. Thereafter, some domestic disputes arose between them and the dentist flew back to her native place in Thanjavur district as she was pregnant. She gave birth to a baby boy on July 8, 2010 at a hospital in Pattukottai.

On May 30, 2011, her husband took away the child on the promise of bringing him back within two hours; the petitioner said and claimed that both the father and child did not return back at all.

After ascertaining that they had flown to Singapore, the dentist also followed them and filed a case in the Subordinate Court of Republic of Singapore seeking custody of the child. Passing interim orders in the case, the court permitted her to visit the child for two hours in three days of every week.

However, she could not stay in Singapore for long due to issues over her visa. Hence, she returned and filed the present petition.

She alleged that her husband had obtained exit visa for the baby by producing fake documents to show as if the baby was being taken out of the country with her consent.

Convinced that the child had been taken away through fraudulent means, the judges said that the mother, being a natural guardian, could not be denied custody of the child.

Hence, they invoked their writ jurisdiction to order production of the child irrespective of an interim order passed by a court in Singapore.

Why you should pay for quality journalism - Click to know more

Recommended for you
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Dec 14, 2019 6:44:58 AM |

Next Story