10-year-old boy not allowed to return to Canada despite Canadian Court orders
Recently, a 10-year-old boy was not allowed to return to Canada by the Rajasthan High Court despite an order passed by a Canadian court directing his return to the country to his father. A bench comprising Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice GoverdhanBardhar passed the order saying that the child’s return would not be in his best interests. A bench comprising Justice Mohammad Rafiq and...
Recently, a 10-year-old boy was not allowed to return to Canada by the Rajasthan High Court despite an order passed by a Canadian court directing his return to the country to his father. A bench comprising Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice GoverdhanBardhar passed the order saying that the child’s return would not be in his best interests.
A bench comprising Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice GoverdhanBardhar passed the order saying that the child’s return would not be in his best interests. "If now he is forced to go back to Canada in the sole care of his father, it is likely to psychologically disturb him, particularly when he will be required to now adapt to an education system of that country. This would adversely affect his overall growth and grooming as in the absence of his mother, his father being a busy professional, he is not likely to remain under the care of a Nanny.," the bench ruled.
The petition had been moved by the father alleging that his wife wrongly removed the couple’s son from his custody. From Ontario, Canada, where the trio was residing, the wife moved to New York, then New Jersey and finally to India along with the son, who was 4 years’ old at that time. The father was now demanding the son’s return to the jurisdiction of the courts of Canada in compliance with the orders passed by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court Hamilton, Ontario.
Not only had the Canadian court granted sole custody of the minor child to the husband but also directed all law enforcement agencies including INTERPOL to enforce the custody order. The Rajasthan HC noted that the removal of the child from Ajmer, Rajasthan, after he had stayed there for a few years now, would not be in his best interests, especially in view of the fact that he suffered from chronic asthma and amblyopia. The court observed that once the child attained the age of majority, he would be entitled to make the choice between acquiring an Indian citizenship or retaining the US citizenship.