Custody disputes should prioritize the best interests of the child, considering parental rights and the child's welfare in determining jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - This petition is filed by the father of a minor child ("Aaryan"), seeking a writ of habeas corpus for directing respondent no.1-mother ("respondent") to produce Aaryan before this court. At the time of filing of the petition on 30/12/2020, Aaryan was one year old. By way of amendment, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent to handover physical custody of Aaryan to the petitioner for taking Aaryan along with him to the United States of America ("the US") in compliance with the order dated 26 th January 2021 of the 470th Judicial District Court of Collins County, Texas. By way of amendment, the petitioner has also prayed for directing respondent to hand over all the official documents of Aaryan, including his original passport, visa, etc., to the petitioner. Presently, Aaryan is around 3 1/2 years old. FACTUAL ASPECTS:

2. Respondent is the petitioner's wife and mother of Aaryan. The petitioner and respondent are citizens of India; however, they are permanent residents of the US. Aaryan is a citizen of the US by birth. The petition was filed on 30/12/2020 as the respondent had refused to allow the petitioner to meet Aaryan and refused to return to the US along with Aaryan.

3. Before dealing with the rival contentions of both parties, it is necessary to note the status regarding access/physical custody granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition.

4. After the petition was filed, by way of interim relief, the petitioner was permitted access to Aaryan through WhatsApp Video Calls. This court, by order dated 12 th January 2021, had recorded the statement made on behalf of the respondent that access would be given to the petitioner through WhatsApp Video Call. We are informed that in view of the interim arrangement, the petitioner continued to get access to Aaryan through WhatsApp Video calls every day for a minimum of 20 minutes. By orders dtd. 13/10/2021 and 17/11/2021, physical access was also given to meet Aaryan when the petitioner travelled to India. This court, by order dtd. 28/10/2021, recorded that the petitioner met Aaryan, and interaction with Aaryan was cordial. Since the parties were agreeable to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, the parties were permitted to meet at the Mediation centre of this court. With respect to the access through video calls, the earlier arrangement was continued.

5. By order dtd. 6/12/2022, the petition was admitted, and by consent of the parties, they were granted time to submit modalities of visitation rights of the petitioner to meet Aaryan. By order dtd. 16/12/2022, it was recorded that under the orders of this court, the petitioner had availed visitation rights of Aaryan, and the petitioner was well aware of the whereabouts of Aaryan; hence, the petition was disposed of.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 16 th December 2022, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dtd. 13/3/2023, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and set aside the order dated 16 th December 2022. By the said order, the present petition was directed to be restored to file for a fresh decision. By the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including such objections as the respondent may have on the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, were kept open. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that endeavour may be made for expeditious disposal of this petition. Hence, this petition was