Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. Arvind Gopal Krishna Chawda, the petitioner herein, was hitherto married to Pulla Sunita Rani, the 6th respondent. He presently seeks a writ of habeas corpus for production of their minor children, Kashvi Chawda and Krish Chawda, citizens of the United States of America (USA), from her custody and to cause their return to the jurisdiction of the courts in New Jersey, USA, in compliance with the orders dated 20.03.2013, 13.08.2013, 31.10.2013 and 23.01.2014 passed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, USA (hereinafter, the American Court). In the alternative, he seeks a direction to the 6th respondent to hand over the custody of the minor children to him so that he can take them back to the jurisdiction of the American Court. A further direction is sought to the 6th respondent to deliver to the petitioner the required documents which are in her custody, such as the passports and other travel related documents of the children, to facilitate their return to the USA.

2. The petitioner and the 6th respondent were married at Hyderabad on 27.04.2002 as per Hindu rites. The petitioner was residing in the USA since 1996 and after their marriage; the 6th respondent joined him there in December, 2002. Kashvi, their daughter, was born on 12.07.2005 in the USA, and was therefore an American citizen by birth. The 6th respondent completed her internship as a pharmacist in the USA at this time. Krish, their son, was born on 11.04.2011 in the USA and was also an American citizen by birth. The 6th respondent left the USA with both the children on 17.03.2013 and came to India. Whether the petitioner had knowledge of this is disputed. According to him, he had no such information and came to know of it only when he called the school on 18.03.2013 to find out about the children and was told that they had not come to school. He claimed that he filed a Missing complaint with the National Centre of Missing and Exploited Children. He filed a petition for divorce and custody before the American Court on 19.03.2013. Thereupon, the American Court passed order dated 20.03.2013 for production and return of the children to its jurisdiction. The petitioner claimed that the 6th respondent received the summons from the American Court but suppressing the same, she filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner asserted that, without disclosing that an interim order of custody had already been granted to him in relation to their children, the 6th respondent filed O.P.No.440 of 2013 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, for divorce and custody, wherein she filed I.A.No.195 of 2013, and obtained an ad-interim injunction dated 02.04.2013 restraining him and his family members from removing the minor children from her custody. The petitioner further asserted that the 6th respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the American Court and faxed letter dated 11.04.2013, through her counsel, to the American Court seeking time to file her counter. The 6th respondents counsel in the USA informed the American Court, by letter dated 18.04.2013, that the 6th respondent was still finalizing her reservations to return to the USA. A similar plea was taken by the 6th respondents counsel under letter dated 22.04.2013.

4. The petitioner stated that the 6th respondent also filed an application before the American Court on 24.04.2013 to dissolve its restraint as to the children’s custody as turning over the children to the petitioner was not in their best interest. The American Court passed order dated 06.06.2013 holding that it had competence and jurisdiction to deal with the custody and parenting time in relation to the children. The petitioner claimed that the 6th respondent again submitted to the jurisdiction of the American Court by filing applications on 29.06.2013 and 03.09.2013. He also claimed that a consent order was passed by the American Court on 13.08.2013, recording that