Deepti Nandlal, 34, says that there is no way she would want to get back with her husband, Rishi Nandlal, 46, but she would go to any extent to get the custody of their four-year-old son, Kush.
Deepti Nandlal, 34, says that there is no way she would want to get back with her husband, Rishi Nandlal, 46, but she would go to any extent to get the custody of their four-year-old son, Kush.
Deepti moved court for Kush’s legal custody, but the family court in September 2007 refused to entertain her petition as Kush was born in South Africa. The question before Bombay High Court is: Can a local court decide the custody battle between parents of a child who is a foreign citizen and had been living abroad.
Deepti and Rishi had an arranged marriage on April 19, 2003, in Mumbai. Deepti migrated to South Africa with Rishi and his family. However, in her application before the family court, Deepti had stated that she was treated worse than a servant by Rishi’s mother and sisters.
Kush was born on July 16, 2004, but nothing changed even after that. In December 2006, Deepti and Kush returned to Mumbai and started living with her parents. After eight days of their arrival, she filed a petition for Kush’s legal custody.
The family court, however, relying on the Guardians and Wards (GW) Act, 1890, refused to entertain her petition. Section 9 of the Act states, “If the application is with respect to the guardianship of a minor, it shall be made to the district court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.”
In her appeal to the high court, Deepti has contended that the place of ordinary stay is not determined by the duration of the stay; the intention of the person migrating or moving to a particular place should also be taken into account.
Moreover, considering the child’s welfare, she was in a better position to look after him as she was a housewife and her family could support her. On the other hand, her husband works long hours and has an 85-year-old mother to look after, her application says.
Rishi in his affidavit-in-reply has stood by the finding of the family court, maintaining that only a South African court can decide on Kush’s custody as he was born there.
Deepti’s advocate MM Vashi on Monday sought time from the court till August 1 to file a rejoinder to Rishi’s reply.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}