The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding jurisdictional claims based on temporary residence or citizenship.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Ms. Desai learned senior counsel waives notice for respondent no. 2, and Ms. Shinde learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 – State. By consent, taken up for final disposal. Considering the prayers in the writ petition and the dispute being only between the petitioner and respondent no. 2, it is not necessary to hear respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.

3. This petition is filed by the father of the minor girl child aged 3 years, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for directing respondent no.2 to produce the child before this court. Respondent no. 2 is the mother of the child and wife of the petitioner. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are parents of respondent no. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for custody of the child together with the child’s original passport, birth certificate and other immigration and health documents from respondent no. 2 and for permission to take the child to Singapore.

FACTUAL ASPECTS:

4. The petitioner and respondent no.2 (“the parties”) got married on 26th December 2018 in New York in the United States of America (“USA”). The petitioner is a citizen of the United Kingdom (“UK”), and respondent no. 2 (“respondent”) is an Indian citizen. On 27th March 2020, their daughter – Anika (“child”), was born in New Jersey, USA. In April 2022, the parties, along with the child, moved to Singapore. The parties started residing in Singapore, and the child was enrolled in a school in Singapore sometime in July 2022. In September 2022, the parties surrendered their “Green Card” in the USA. Thereafter, the respondent, along with the child, came to India sometime in the first week of December 2022, and she did not return to Singapore. Hence, the present petition was filed on 3rd February 2023.

5. The parties made an attempt to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. We interacted with the parties in chambers; the petitioner joined through video conferencing. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to arrive at any amicable settlement. We have heard the learned senior counsels for both parties at length.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that after their daughter was born, the respondent suffered from postpartum depression and anxiety, which contributed to the marital problems between the parties. Hence, the parties decided to stay separate for a period of six months. On 20th December 2021, the parties signed a Marriage Reconciliation Agreement and started residing together in New Jersey along with the child. Sometime in January 2022, the parties attended marital counselling. Thereafter, they jointly agreed to relocate to Singapore. On 19th April 2022, the parties and the child, shifted to Singapore, and they both secured a job in Singapore. Thus, they jointly decided that Singapore was a better place for raising their daughter and decided to settle down in Singapore permanently.

7. On 7th May 2022, the parties entered into a two-year lease from June 2022 to June 2024 and secured a residence in Singapore. On 25th July 2022, the child was enrolled in an International preschool in Singapore, and she started attending her nursery for the first term. It was submitted that since the parties decided to reside in Singapore permanently, they surrendered their “Green Cards” in the USA.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12th November 2022, he left for UK to meet his parents and his children from his previous marriage who are residing in UK. The petitioner was in UK from 12th November 2022 to 5th December 2022, and during the entire period, the respondent did not reply to any of his phone calls and messages. When the petitioner returned to Singapore on 6th December 2022, he could not trace the respondent and the child. Their domestic help informed him that the respondent had termina