Ibrahim Khalilullah :
A few days ago, the High Court gave an outstanding judgment on the custody and guardianship of minors. In the judgment, the court highlighted their sharp-edged observations on juvenile custody and guardianship cases and the current social context.
In a part of the judgment, the court held that in habeas corpus cases involving custody of a minor (a case of bringing a detainee or detainee to court) there is no scope for determining custody of a child. The custody of the child will be determined by the concerned family court. According to the judgment, the High Court bench is conducting habeas corpus cases at a significant rate regarding custody of children due to various issues including divorce of parents and marital quarrels.
The High Court, while sharing its experience, said that the cases of guardianship and custody of children in family courts are being delayed. It has come to the notice of the court that even the cases of 2010 have not been settled yet. The cases of 2014 and 2018 are also pending.
The court expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict, saying that the cases regarding guardianship and custody of children have been going on for so long. It is sad and depressing and against the principles of justice. The court thinks that there is no alternative for the speedy disposal of these cases.
Therefore, the High Court, by Article 109 of the Constitution, directed that in all family courts of the country, cases relating to guardianship and custody of children should be disposed of within six months of filing the case.
The court further observed that the plaintiffs or defendants were not complying with the various orders of the family courts, especially the order to visit the children, which resulted in them coming back to the High Court to file a habeas corpus case.
Surprisingly, according to section 19 of the Family Ordinance 1985, there is a provision to fine the contempt of court only 200 taka.
The High Court observes that in the reality of the time, this provision of punishment for contempt of family court should be amended and made more stringent. The High Court thinks that the provision of civil jail and adequate fines is a demand of the time. The court expects that the policymakers of the government and the concerned ministry will take appropriate action immediately considering the seriousness of the court’s observation.
Among the cases discussed in the last few months regarding child custody are cases of Japanese mother and Bangladeshi father, case of Indian mother getting her children back, and custody case of Moaz Arif and Madhabi Akter.
Meanwhile, the High Court has ordered to give custody to the father in the case of the Japanese mother. However, the mother can come from Japan and stay with the children three more times a year, at the expense of the father. The High Court suspended the Bangladeshi passport of the father as he fled to Australia with the child of the Indian mother in defiance of the court order. The High Court said that the decision on Madhabi Akter Neela will be taken in the family court.
All these cases are pending in the family court.
(Writer is a senior reporter. Email: [email protected])
