Supreme Law News

Can mother be denied custody of the child because she is moving abroad for work

The Court ruled that if the mother's relocation was made for greater fortune, it could not be used as grounds for denying her custody as long as the child's wellbeing was also safeguarded.

According to a recent ruling by the Kerala High Court, a woman can not be denied custody of her child just because she is moving abroad in search of better employment opportunities.

The observation was made when a plea was being heard in the case by the child's mother by a division bench consisting of A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas.

The mother's desire to bring the child to New Zealand with her had been denied by a family court. As a result, the mother petitioned the High Court for remedy.

The mother was relocating to New Zealand in search of better employment chances, according to the High Court. In light of this, the Court declared that her choice to relocate abroad should not be used as a reason to deny her child custody.

"As long as the child's welfare is likewise protected, the appellant's (mother's) move for greater fortune can not prevent her from claiming custody. The Court ruled that the youngster should recognize his biological parents and have every right to develop under their care and supervision.

The Court further stated that just because there is a custody dispute does not obligate a party to remain in the same place indefinitely in order to maintain custody of the child.

In order to transport the child to New Zealand, the High Court accepted the mother's argument and deemed her to be the child's only legal guardian.

The child's parents had previously divorced, and the mother was granted custody up until the child became six years old. The child's father, who had a job in Bahrain, was granted visitation and contact privileges.

Later, after obtaining residency to live there, the mother of the kid tried to bring the child with her to New Zealand. The mother of the child went to the family court to request authorization after the child's father objected to the action.

The family court rejected the application on the grounds that the parameters of the child custody arrangement may remain unchanged. The mother was also told by the family court that if she moved to New Zealand, she would have to give the child to the relatives of her ex-husband.

The High Court, however, believed that the family court failed to properly assess the welfare of the child.

The High Court stressed the child's right to live with his or her original parents while simultaneously pointing out the mother's freedom to travel to another country in search of better chances.

"The child's preference to live with one of the parents should be the top factor to protect the child's welfare... According to the High Court, depriving the kid of the opportunity to grow up in a natural and familial environment is against the child's best interests if the biological parents are prepared to uphold those interests.

The Court upheld the mother's petition while also granting the father temporary custody and visitation rights.

In addition, without the father's permission, the mother was not allowed to change the child's nationality.

Your free access to Supreme Law News has expired

Supreme Law News Premium

Why should you subscribe?

* Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements

* Receive daily newsletters

* Receive real-time Telegram/Whatsapp news updates

* Download original judgments / orders / notifications / circulars, etc

* Enjoy exclusive entry fees to the Simplified series. (Webinars, seminars, masterclasses, etc.)

( special offer)

Subscribe Now

For further details contact:

Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey

( LLM, MBA, (UK), PhD, AIMA, AFAI, PHD Chamber, ICTC, PCI, FCC, DFC, PPL, MNP, BNI, ICJ (UK), WP, (UK), MLE, Harvard Square, London, CT, Blair Singer Institute, (USA), Dip. in International Crime, Leiden University, the Netherlands )

Advocate & Consultant Supreme Court of India, High Courts & Tribunals.