SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 04.11.2003. The parties set up their matrimonial home in U.K. as the petitioner was already working there since November, 2000. A child was born out of the said wedlock Ms.Elina who is now three and a half years old. Respondent No.2 also started working in U.K. The petitioner and respondent No.2 acquired the status of permanent residents of U.K. in the year 2004 prior to the birth of the child on 20.02.2006. The child acquired British passport though the parents continued to hold Indian passports.

2. The pleadings in the present petition show that there were some problems in the marriage.

3. The allegation of the petitioner/husband is that respondent No.2/wife failed to take care of the child and was also not able to attend to her work properly while on the other hand respondent No.2 alleges that it is the petitioner who was least helpful and, in fact, needed psychiatric attention. It is, however, not necessary to go into all the details of allegations and counter allegations as the scope of the present proceedings is limited inasmuch as that the petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to respondent No.2 to produce the minor child and for grant of custody of the child to the petitioner. The facts leading up to this litigation are being further set out hereinafter.

4. It is the own case of the parties that there was a plan to visit India and respondent No.2 along with the minor child departed from U.K. for India on 12.09.2008. The petitioner arrived at New Delhi, India on 10.10.2008. The petitioner left for U.K. on 14.10.2008. The petitioner claims that respondent No.2 was supposed to join him in his family house at New Delhi once he arrived in India, but respondent No.2 was not willing to do the same. It is alleged that father of respondent No.2 told the petitioner that he should see a psychiatrist in India and have a medical report prepared about his mental health. The petitioner claimed that he was even willing to undergo that provided it was conducted by a neutral doctor which was not acceptable to respondent No.2 and her father. Respondent No.2 and the child were supposed to leave for U.K. on 09.11.2008, but Respondent No.2 got the tickets cancelled on 07.11.2008 and thus the child and respondent No.2 did not join back the petitioner at their matrimonial home in U.K. The aforesaid resulted in the petitioner initiating proceedings before High Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K. on 25.11.2008 seeking an order that the minor be made a ward of the Hon’ble Court and a direction be passed for respondent No.2 to return the minor child to the jurisdiction of that Court. On 26.11.2008, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Munby of the said High Court directed that respondent No.2 should cause the minor child Ms.Elina to be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales within 14 days of the service of the said order and that the child should thereafter be forbidden (whether by herself or by instructing or encouraging any other person) from causing or permitting the minor to be removed from the jurisdiction of England and Wales without permission of a Judge of the said Court. A direction was also passed for the passports and other international travel documents in respect of the minor child to be handed over within 72 hours of the return of the minor to the solicitors of the petitioner and the same would not to be released to either party without permission of a Judge of the said High Court. Respondent No.2, however, did not oblige. The present proceedings were filed soon thereafter in December, 2008.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that the parties had set up their matrimonial home in Scotland and thereafter in England and were subject to jurisdiction of U.K. since the year 2003. The parties worked for gain in U.K. and the minor child was holding a British passport with parents acquiring

Click Here to Read the rest of this document