JYOTPREET CHADHA v. MOHITA CHADHA

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 JYOTPREET CHADHA,) Case Number: FDI-24-799250) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 MOHITA CHADHA,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER TRAVEL RESTIRCTION, F.C. 271 SANCTIONS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 15 Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 16 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 17 A.

Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Jyotpreet Chada (Father) and Respondent Mohita Chada (Mother). 19 They share one minor child: Emanya (DOB: 12/7/21). 20 2) On 8/22/25, the parties attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference. 21 3) On 5/27/26, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking travel restrictions and Family Code section 22 271 sanctions. Mother requests that neither parent be allowed to travel outside the United States 23 (U.S.) with the minor child until she reaches adolescence.

Mother alleges that Father has 24 expressed a desire to take the minor child to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is where his 25 family resides. Mother states that the UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Convention; therefore, 26 there is no mechanism for U.S. courts to compel her return. Mother also requests Family Code 27 section 271 sanctions in the amount of $32,034.92. 28 4) On 6/30/26, Father filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Mother’s Request for Order. 29 Father alleges that the parties came to an agreement on international travel during a Mandatory

1 Settlement Conference on 8/22/25, though Mother later stated that she was not in agreement 2 before the Court. Father states that he has serious, long-term ties to the Bay Area, is a U.S. 3 citizen, and has no intention of relocating with the minor child to the UAE. Father asks the Court 4 to deny Mother’s request for prohibition on international travel. Father also states that Mother’s 5 request for Family Code section 271 sanctions is without merit, and requests Family Code section 6 271 sanctions against Mother in the amount of $30,000. 7 5) On 7/14/26, Mother filed a Reply Declaration reiterating her position set forth in her 5/27/26 8 Request for Order.

Mother further states that she is willing to allow international travel once the 9 minor child reaches the age of 15 if custody orders are registered and recognized no later than 30 10 days prior to the minor child’s departure from the U.S., with additional alternative requirements if 11 recognition of custody orders is not possible for the destination country. 12 6) On 7/16/26, Father filed a supplemental declaration. 13 B. Findings and Order 14 1) Given that it appears no agreement was reached at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on 15 8/22/25, the parties are ordered to appear to set the matter for a long-cause hearing and shall 16 be prepared to: (a) discuss their time estimate (i.e., number of days); and (b) inform the Court of 17 any witnesses they intend to present. 18 2) The Court reserves jurisdiction over the issue of sanctions as to both parties. 19