S. Muralidhar, J :

1. At the outset, Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the Petitioner. His vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a South African national seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his minor daughter who is presently in the custody of his wife, Respondent No.2. He seeks the return of the child to South Africa.

3. The brief facts were set out in the very first order passed in this petition on 20th July, 2017 as under:

“The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his minor daughter aged 10 months, who is at present in the custody of respondent No.2, and also for her return to South Africa.

The petitioner is a citizen of South Africa. The marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 23.06.2015 in India. Out of their wedlock, a girl child was born on 12.09.2016 in South Africa. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the pretext of meeting her family, respondent No.2 removed the child from the lawful custody of the petitioner. Mr. Aggarwal also submits that being a citizen of South Africa, visa of the minor has expired.

Issue notice to the respondents to show-cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Learned counsel for the State accepts notice. Let notice be issued to respondent No.2, returnable on 01.08.2017.”

4. On 1st August 2017, the Court issued a number of directions in order to facilitate the conduct of mediation between the parties in a congenial atmosphere. Before setting out the said order, it is necessary to notice a few background facts from the point of view of Respondent No.2.

5. What is not in dispute between the parties is that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 met through a website. Their marriage ceremony was performed in Gujarat on 23rd June, 2015. The marriage was registered in New Delhi on 26th June, 2015 under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”). Respondent No.2 was at the time of marriage, as she is now, residing with her parents in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

6. It appears that sometime in October, 2015 Respondent No.2 went to South Africa to join the Petitioner in his house in Cape Town. A baby girl was born to the parties in Cape Town on 12th September, 2016.

7. According to the Respondent No.2, when the baby was just 12 days old, Respondent No.2 along with the baby and her parents, who were visiting, were evicted from the matrimonial home. However, this version is seriously disputed by the Petitioner. According to him, between 12th September, 2016 and 25th October 2016, Respondent No.2 along with the child and her parents continued to reside in the matrimonial home.

8. Be that as it may, what is not in dispute between the parties is that on 25th October 2016, Respondent No.2 along with her child who was at that time slightly over a month old, left Cape Town and returned to New Delhi with the consent of the Petitioner. The tickets for their air travel from Cape Town to New Delhi were admittedly purchased by the Petitioner. The Court’s attention has been drawn to the visa application form and the consent provided by the Petitioner for the travel of his wife and his child to India “from 25th October, 2016 to 3rd January, 2017”.

9. Within a month of arriving in India, Respondent No.2 instituted two sets of proceedings on 26th November, 2016. The first was a petition seeking divorce under Section 13 of the HMA. In the said petition, an application was also filed under Section 26 of the HMA for retention of the custody of the minor child. The second proceeding instituted by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner was a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act”) in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (“MM”), Saket. Notice was issued to the Petitioner in both sets of proc