Judge rules objection void after travel permit expired due to father’s non-compliance
The Al Madam Court of First Instance has rejected a father’s challenge to a judicial order allowing his four-year-old daughter to travel abroad with her custodian. The court ruled that the father’s failure to comply with its instructions caused the travel date to lapse, rendering his objection legally void.
The Personal Status Circuit found that the father did not hand over the child’s passport within the court-specified timeframe, leading to the cancellation of the trip and the expiry of the travel permit. Consequently, the court held that the objection no longer had a valid subject matter.
Court records indicate that the dispute began after the court granted the child’s mother, the legal custodian, permission to travel with her four-year-old daughter to Jordan for six days, subject to specific conditions. The order required the mother to cover all travel-related expenses and directed the father to hand over the child’s passport two days before departure, with the document to be returned upon their return to the UAE.
The father later filed an objection seeking to revoke the travel permit. He argued that the trip was not medically necessary and did not involve an emergency justifying travel abroad. He also claimed that the custodian had not coordinated with him prior to requesting the permit, suggesting that she could travel alone while the child remained in his care.
He further contended that the travel order infringed on his court-established visitation rights, depriving him of the opportunity to see his daughter during the trip without legitimate justification. He added that the permit was issued without urgent necessity and lacked legal safeguards to ensure the child’s return.
In response, the mother told the court that the trip could not proceed because the father had repeatedly refused to surrender the child’s passport, despite multiple attempts to enforce the court’s order. She said his refusal led to the cancellation of travel arrangements, causing her financial loss and emotional distress.
The court noted that the travel period specified in the original order had already elapsed by the time the father’s objection was considered. It emphasized that judicial objections must relate to an existing and effective legal matter, and a party cannot seek relief against an order whose execution was obstructed by that same party.
The court further held that failure to comply with court orders within the prescribed timeframe does not create a legal entitlement for the non-compliant party, nor does it revive an order whose effects have already expired.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the father’s objection and ruled that he must bear all court fees and related expenses.
