1. This petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to cause the production of the person of detenu, Baby Srishti, aged about 3 years before this Court and hand over the said detenu to the legal custody of the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner and respondent No.5 got married on 18.1.2010 at Shivashakthi Convention Hall in Bengaluru, as per the Hindu rites and customs. In their wedlock, a female child, namely, Srishti is born on 19.11.2013 at Phoenix, AZ in U.S.A. The child is a citizen of U.S.A. by birth. On the ground that respondent No.5 was treating the petitioner with cruelty, the petitioner filed the divorce petition against her in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in the Country of Maricopa in October 2014. Respondent No.5 submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the said Court in the U.S.A. The Court of Maricopa passed the consensual order. It was held that the petitioner and respondent No.5 be awarded joint legal decision-making regarding the child.

3. The said U.S.A. Court ordered that if the petitioner or respondent No.5 proposes to travel with the child outside U.S.A., the parent must provide the other parent with a written itinerary of their travel. It is now the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 has detained the child beyond the vacation schedule, which ended on 18.10.2016 and that thereby she has been denying the access to the petitioner. Complaining the abduction of the child by the respondent No.5, the petitioner has already filed an emergency petition for contempt, enforcement of custody order, warrant for immediate production and issuance of writ of habeas corpus in U.S.A. Court. Considering the conduct of the respondent No.5, the Superior Court of Arizona vide its order, dated 24.10.2016 granted the petitioner sole legal decision-making authority in respect of the detenu.

4. Sri S. Sreevatsa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vijaykumar Prakash for the petitioner submits that the child is being illegally detained. He submits that the respondent No.5 cannot deprive the American Court of its jurisdiction to decide upon the custody of Srishti by removing her to India. He relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of SMT. SURINDER KAUR SANDHU v. HARBAX SINGH SANDHU AND ANOTHER reported in (1984) 3 SCC 698 to advance the submission that the forum-shopping cannot be encouraged, more so when the child is a citizen of America. When the matrimonial home of the spouses is in America and when the American Court has passed the order regarding the custody of the child, the respondent No.5 is not justified in approaching the Family Court in Bengaluru to perpetuate her illegal custody of the child.

5. He relies on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of V. RAVI CHANDRAN (DR.) (2) v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 1 SCC 174 to buttress his submission that the sudden and unauthorized removal of children from one country to another is too frequent nowadays and that therefore it is the duty of all courts in all countries to do all they can do to ensure that the wrongdoer does not gain an advantage by his wrongdoing. Paragraph No.35 of the said decision is extracted here in below:

“35. The facts and circumstances noticed above leave no manner of doubt that merely because the child has been brought to India by Respondent 6, the custody issue concerning minor child Adithya does not deserve to be gone into by the courts in India and it would be in accord with principles of comity as well as on facts to return the child back to the United States of America from where he has been removed and enable the parties to establish the case before the courts in the native State of the child i.e. United States of America for modification of the existing custody orders. There is nothing on record which may even remotely suggest that it would be harmful for the child to be returned to his native country.”

6.