SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ.
Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5924 of 2019
Decided On : 30-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate a/w Subir Kumar, Akash Rebello, Chahat Dhingra, Samiksha Manek i/by Subir Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondents: Sonal a/w Rohit Gupta, Nirupama Kar, Tishaa Maheshwari i/by Inter Juris, V.B. Konde – Deshmukh, APP.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14 or 15 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act - Sections 19,17 and 19 to 21A - Special Marriage Act - Issue of a writ of habeas corpus - Dangers or seductions - extraordinary remedy - Mutual agreement - Despite Petitioner aliving in different parts of world their relationship continued - Petitioner got married at Egyptian Embassy Petitioner also got a certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act issued by marriage office of district - After marriage Petitioner tried to conceive naturally but for medical reasons was not successful their second attempt with In Vitro Fertilization was successful - Case of Petitioner temporarily moved with her parents during last 3 months of her pregnancy - Petitioner continued to visit from time to time and resided at Petitioner’s in-law’s residence – Held, Case 2nd and 3rd respondent and husband of 3rd respondent wish to visit child - Petitioner shall provide unhindered access to child during such visits - Such visits by Respondent No. 2 along with Respondent No. 3 and also husband of Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to be of a duration of time not exceeding 15 days and four times in a year - Such time of 15 days may be extended as per mutual agreement if required - Petitioner shall allow private respondents to meet child for minimum 6 hours on every day during visit to residence of Petitioner at Abu Dhabi - During stay of Petitioner, his mother or sister case may be, in India Respondent No. 1 shall not take any coercive action against them in relation to subject matter of this petition - Writ petition stands disposed of

JUDGMENT :

S.S Shinde, J.

1. This petition is filed praying therein to issue writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, orders/direction to direct the respondents to produce the body of the person i.e. Kian Kaseem son of Petitioner who has been illegally confined by Respondent No. 2 and 3 before this Hon’ble Court and further to hand over custody of Kian Kaseem to the Petitioner.

2. Respondent No. 1 herein is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2- Paulami Apte is the sister of wife of the Petitioner namely Soumi Ghosh and Respondent No. 3 is the mother of wife of the Petitioner. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 and 3 have raised various disputed question of facts. However, for the purpose of deciding the present petition, the relevant facts in brief, are as under:-

The Petitioner is an Egyptian national who was working in Mumbai with Weatherford India. He started working with Weatherford India in November 2006 and was stationed in Mumbai till January 2014. In July 2007 he met Ms. Soumi Ghosh who was also working in the same office. The Petitioner and Soumi were in a relationship from November 2007. In 2011, Soumi Ghosh moved to Calgary, Canada to work as a log analyst for Weatherford. Despite the distance, the Petitioner and Ms. Soumi Ghosh continued their relationship.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in October 2012, the Petitioner and Soumi Ghosh were engaged. Despite the Petitioner and Soumi Ghosh living in different parts of the world their relationship continued. In August 2014, the Petitioner and Soumi Ghosh got married at the Egyptian Embassy in Myanmar. In October 2014, the Petitioner and Soumi Ghosh also got a certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act issued by the marriage office of Pune district. After marriage, the Petitioner and Soumi Ghosh tried to conceive naturally but for medical reasons this was not successful. However, their second attempt with In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) was successful. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in December 2018, Soumi Ghosh temporarily moved to Pune to be with her parents during the last 3 months of her pregnancy, during which the Petitioner continued to visit Soumi in Pune from time to time and resided at the Petitioner’s in-law’s residence.

4. On 3rd February 2019, the Petitioner’s son Kian Kaseem was born in Jehangir hospital in Pune. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was present before and during the delivery. The Petitioner arrived in Pune on 2nd February 2019 for the delivery of his son and remained in Pune till 16th February 2019 and thereafter the Petitioner again came back to visit his wife and son, Kian Kaseem in Pune from Dubai on 10th March 2019 and left on 16th March 2019 for Dubai to resume his work. Thereafter the Petitioner again came back to Pune on 16th April 2019 from Egypt to see his wife and son.

5. On 17th April 2019, the Petitioner’s wife Soumi Ghosh fell unconscious at around 6.30 am. She was admitted to Jehangir hospital where after approximately 2 hours of emergency medical treatment she was declared dead. It is alleged by the Petitioner that, soon after the death of Petitioner’s wife, Respondent No. 2 (sister in law) started forcing him to leave the child with her in Pune and return to work. The Petitioner refused and stated that his child would remain with him. It is alleged that, Respondent No. 2 after death of Petitioner’s wife pressurized the Petitioner to leave the job at Algeria and settle in Pune. It is alleged that, such action of Respondent No. 2 clearly speaks of interfering with the personal life of the Petitioner with the sole intention to take the illegal custody of the Petitioner’s minor son, Kian Kaseem. Thereafter, Petitioner along with Kian as well as Respondent No. 2 traveled to Egypt on 16th June 2019 where they resided together in the Petitioner’s apartment. The Petitioner, his son and Respondent No. 2 lived in the same apartment in Cairo with the consent of Respondent No. 2 where

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top