The welfare of the child is paramount; unilateral decisions by one parent cannot deprive the child of the other's company or rights in their country of citizenship.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Mr. Karnavat waives service on behalf of respondent no. 6, Mr. Sharma waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8 and learned APP waives service on behalf of the State of Maharashtra-respondent no. 9. Since the dispute in the Writ Petition is between the petitioner and respondent no. 6, it is not necessary to hear respondent nos. 1 to 5.

3. The petition is filed, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to produce his minor daughter ‘Ananya’ aged about 4 and ½ years, now 5 years old, before this Court and direct respondents to facilitate the safe return of the minor daughter to the USA. Respondent no.6 is the petitioner's wife and mother of the minor daughter. Respondent nos. 7 and 8 are the parents of respondent no. 6.

Petitioner’s case in brief:

4. Petitioner is an Indian Citizen by birth and presently residing in the United States of America (‘USA’) and is a green card holder and permanent resident of the USA. The petitioner is working as a Principal Scientist at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Petitioner and respondent no.6 got married in India at Kerala on 25th October 2014. The daughter of petitioner and respondent no.6 was born on 14th December 2018 in the USA and is thus a citizen of the USA. On 31st January 2023, respondent no.6 visited her family in Mumbai along with the daughter; though respondent no.6 was scheduled to return to the USA along with the daughter on 30th April 2023, respondent no. 6 continued to reside with her parents along with the daughter. Initially, respondent no.6 remained in contact with the petitioner, but due to the demand of a substantial sum of money made by respondent no.6 with the petitioner and as the petitioner was unable to concede her demand, respondent no.6 suspended all forms of contacts of the petitioner and the minor daughter. According to the petitioner, there is a possibility of respondent no. 6 being brainwashed or coerced by respondent nos. 7 and 8 to extend her stay in India and illegally detain the daughter, who is an American citizen. It is the petitioner’s case that for no cogent reasons, respondent no.6 has refused to take the daughter to the USA.

5. According to the petitioner, the daughter was due to be enrolled for preschool on 1st May 2023, and she was required to attend an interview in mid-May for admission to the kindergarten. However, respondent no.6 refused to take back the daughter to the USA. On 11th May 2023, the petitioner received a message on WhatsApp pertaining to a purported divorce proceeding along with a child custody petition having been filed by respondent no.6 before the Family Court at Bandra. However, the petitioner was never served with any copy of such petition. Thus, on 15th May 2023, the petitioner travelled to India in an attempt to reconcile the differences and misunderstandings, if any, with respondent no.6 and requested her to return to the USA along with their daughter. However, initially, he was even denied access to his daughter. However, after several requests, the petitioner was allowed to meet his daughter for a very short time. On 17th May 2023, when the petitioner visited the residence of respondent no.6 to meet his daughter, he was faced with severe humiliation and was driven out of the house as he refused to concede to the oblique demands of respondent nos. 6 to 8. As respondent no. 6 refused to return to the USA along with the daughter, the petitioner was constrained to return to the USA alone as he was required to attend to his professional commitments. Since then, the petitioner has been making several efforts to mediate with respondent no.6 by requesting her to return to the USA with the daughter. However, respondent no. 6 refused to cooperate with the petitioner in any manner. Hence, the petitioner sent an email on 9th June 2023 addressed to the Ministry of External Affairs- respondent no. 1 and the Assistant Commissioner o