B. VEERAPPA, J.

1. The petitioner father filed Writ Petition No.49517/2018 against the order dated 30.10.2018 made in G & WC No.242/2018 on the file of the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru rejecting I.A. No.2 filed by him under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ('G & W Act' for short) and vacating the interim order dated 1.9.2018 and consequently directing him to return the child Prisha Eklaspur to the custody of the respondent mother, forthwith.

2. The petitioner father filed Writ Petition No.52377/2018 against the order dated 7.11.2018 made in G & WC No.242/2018 allowing I.A. No.5 filed by the respondent mother and directing the Station House Officer, Thalagattapura Police Station, Bengaluru to assist the respondent mother in securing the custody of the minor child Prisha from the petitioner father as per the order dated 30.10.2018.

I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 30.4.2006 at Gadag as per the arrangement made by the elders of both the families and thereafter he took an assignment at Vancouver, Canada from his employer company in Bengaluru as the respondent was fond of staying abroad and he moved to Canada along with the respondent, leaving his parents in India. During many other occasions, the petitioner has also traveled to US and UK on long term work projects without any intentions of settling permanently there and has returned to India after the completion of the project. It is further case of the petitioner that after moving to Vancouver - Canada, the petitioner had added the respondent as a joint account holder to his salary account, giving her access to his salary account and given the respondent the full freedom and security financially and emotionally and there were several investments that the petitioner and his sister had made in the name of the respondent. The respondent insisted to take a job using her law degree but she had to first complete a course in English and the petitioner had completely borne the expenses of her course financially and supported morally to complete the same. Out of the wedlock, the female child by name Prisha was born on 20.10.2008 in Canada and since Prisha was born in Canada, she automatically became a Canadian citizen, however, she holds a PIO Card ('Person of Indian Origin' Card).

4. It is further case of the petitioner that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was never cordial and the respondent used to regularly pick up some or the other quarrel with the petitioner and abuse him and his parents. The respondent abused and chased away the parents of the petitioner who had gone to Vancouver to help the respondent during the post-partum period. The respondent returned to India in 2009 since her dependent visa had expired and again after the same was extended, she moved back to Vancouver with the child after nine months, on obtaining fresh Dependent Visa in December 2009.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that only to prevent from multiple renewals of work permits during their multiyear job posting, at the behest of the respondent and her friends, petitioner obtained a Permanent Resident (PR) visa for himself and the respondent as his dependent in order to avoid expiry of health insurance coverage every time the work permit expires. The petitioner had been a very good husband and father and he would wake up early, cook breakfast and lunch to the respondent and their daughter as the respondent attended office work in night shifts and used to spend considerable number of hours during the day sleeping and it was the petitioner who took care of the child while availing the option of 'work from home' from his office. However, the respondent always found fault with the petitioner and never left an opportunity to pick fights with him no matter what he did. Inspite of repeated requests by the petitioner, the respondent had made it clear that she was ne