COURTROOM DRAMA CASES

1. "Mother Can't Be Asked to Choose Between Child &

Career": Bombay High Court Permits Woman to Go
Abroad with Daughter (2022)

OVERVIEW
The petitioner, who wants to divorce her husband (the
respondent), sought for sole custody of their minor daughter
in Family Court, Pune. In her petition for custody, the
petitioner had filed an application seeking permission to
relocate and shift to Poland along with her daughter. The
Family Court granted partial relief to the husband, and
prevented the wife from taking their daughter out of India.
Further, the Court restrained the wife from changing the
daughter's school without the consent of her husband. The
petitioner challenged this order in the Bombay High Court.
Advocate Abhijit Sarwate argued on behalf of the wife that
the family court failed to take into account the prospects
available to the petitioner in takng the job in Poland which
will further her career growth. He submitted that his client is
going to Poland only for a limited period and has assured
access to the father. He further submitted that the wife has
single handedly brought up the child and the husband has
failed to take up responsibility.
Justice Bharati Dangre carefully considered the concerns of
both husband and wife and relying on Supreme Court
judgment in Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, held that a
balance has to be drawn between the interest of both the
parties and by offering paramount consideration to the welfare
of the child. The court held that it cannot deny the wife the
opportunity to further her career. The option of separating the
mother is also not viable as the daughter has always stayed
with her mother. The court stated that the child is young and
can adopt a new environment, so she will not feel uprooted.
Further, the period of stay is limited to two years, which is not
a very long period of time and it cannot be said that the child
will get dissociated with her father and her country.

2. Maradu apartments demolition order (2019)

OVERVIEW
On 8 May 2019, the Supreme Court of India ordered five
apartments in Maradu municipality in Kerala to be
demolished within one month, for violation of Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules, however, only four of these
apartments had been constructed. The four apartments already
completed and occupied by the people were Jains Coral
Cove(Jain Housing and Construction Ltd), H2O Holy Faith
(Holy Faith Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd) and Alfa Serene
(Alfa Ventures Private Ltd) and Golden Kayaloram (KP
Varkey & VS Builders). The fifth builder, Holiday Heritage,
had scrapped the project.
A Mumbai-based advocate and the president of National
Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms
said that as per notification issued in 2011 by the central
government, Maradu was brought under CRZ II and that even
if the buildings were demolished, they could be reconstructed
at the same location. Rules are procedural laws brought by the
executive for enforcing the acts of parliament. The rules
which are applicable to the buildings now are the rules in
force today. As CRZ II applies to the buildings in question
and there is no violation. The procedure adopted by the
Supreme Court in bypassing the Kerala Municipality Act and
rules under it was without jurisdiction and shocking.

3. Can trans man Adam Harry become a pilot in India?

(2022)

OVERVIEW
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which
has been facing severe criticism from many quarters for
blocking a transgender man’s ambition of becoming a pilot,
has issued a clarification now that “there are no restrictions on
Transgender people to obtain Pilot’s License and Ratings;
subject to the individual ensuring compliance of relevant
provisions of age, educational qualifications, medical fitness,
knowledge experience etc. among other things as specified in
Aircraft Rules, 1937.” (sic) The DGCA has also said that the
trans man in question, Adam Harry, can reapply for a medical
fitness examination, so that he can qualify to get a commercial
pilot’s licence in India.
Harry has filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court
against DGCA.
 4. Mother Can Give Surname of Second Husband to
Child After Death of Biological Father: Supreme
Court

OVERVIEW

Andhra Pradesh HC direction to a mother who remarried

another person after death of her first husband to restore
surname of a child - Further direction that wherever the
records permit, the name of the natural father shall be shown
and if it is otherwise impermissible, the name of the present
husband shall be mentioned as step-father - Allowing appeal,
the Supreme Court observed: Nothing unusual in mother,
upon remarriage having given the child the surname of her
husband or even giving the child in adoption to her husband -
The direction to include the name of the present husband as
step-father in documents is almost cruel and mindless of how
it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child
- The mother being the only natutural guardian of the child
has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has
the right to give the child in adoption