JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10606-10608 of 2010 are directed against the judgment and final order dated 24th September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 25479 of 2009 issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the petitioner to submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. The petitioner also assails the orders dated 3rd December, 2010 and 14th December, 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.M.P. No. 31378 of 2010 in W.P. No. 25479 of 2010, directing the petitioner to produce the child along with necessary documents to give effect to the main judgment and order dated 24th September, 2010. The appellant has framed three questions of law for the consideration of this Court in the Special Leave Petition giving rise to these appeals. They are as under:-

“(A) Has not the Hon’ble High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law in not considering the welfare and well being of the minor child before issuing the impugned directions ?

(B) Has not the Hon’ble High Court erred in holding that when there is an order passed by foreign court, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case?

(C) Is not the judgment of US Court “not conclusive” as between the parties and hence unenforceable in India for being in violation of Section 13(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?”

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law as narrated by the arties are as under:-

(a) Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “husband”) invoked the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for production of the minor child, i.e., Master Anand Saisuday Bandi before the Court and permit him to take custody of the minor child in compliance of the orders passed in Case No.06-3-08145-9-KNT by the Superior Court of Washington, County of King (hereinafter referred to as “the U.S. Court”). Upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, the High Court issued the following directions:-

“ i) The petitioner shall obtain necessary travel tickets for the 7th respondent and the child for their visit to the place where U.S. Court is situated;

ii) On obtaining travel tickets, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the 7th respondent three weeks in advance of the date of departure to enable her to make necessary arrangements;

iii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of $5000 (Five thousand American dollars) in the name of the 7th respondent for enabling her to engage an advocate in US and to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court;

iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the 7th respondent and the child for a period of fifteen (15) [sic] on their landing in USA.

v) On petitioner providing travel tickets, depositing the amount as ordered above, and intimating the date of departure, if 7th respondent fails to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court along with the child, Master Anand Saisuday Bandi, in obedience to the orders passed in writ of Habeas Corpus by the US Court, she shall handover the custody of the child to the petitioner, who in turn shall produce the child before the US Court and custody of the child will abide by the decision of the US Court since the child is a citizen of USA.”

(b) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to either as “the petitioner”, “the wife” or “the mother”), aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, filed the special leave petitions giving rise to the present appeals.

Events/ Legal Proceedings in the U.S.A.:

(c) The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rights on 9th November, 2003 in Atlanta, USA. They were both divorcees. After marriage, they had settled down in Seattle, USA. Anand (hereinafter referred to either as “the child”, “the minor child,” or “Anand”) was born on 5th June, 2005 in USA and,