VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce her minor daughter in the Court and to set her at liberty into the custody of the petitioner. The petition is directed primarily against her husband who is impleaded as respondent No. 4.

GIST OF PROCEEDINGS

2. In the petition as originally filed, the petitioner had also impleaded Mr. Ajey Lohia, father of respondent No. 4, as respondent No.5. The reason for impleadment of respondent No. 5 as a party respondent was that at the time of filing of the writ petition (which was filed initially on 31.01.2018), the minor daughter of the petitioner and respondent no.4 – Baby Raina, was with respondent No.5 and his wife at Dubai, while the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were in India. In terms of this Court’s order dt. 08.02.2018, Baby Raina was brought from Dubai to Delhi and then she was in the custody of respondent No.4. Consequently, vide order dated 19.02.2018, respondent No. 5 Ajey Lohia was deleted from the array of parties, on his own request.

3. On 05.03.2018, we interacted with the petitioner and respondent No.4 in Chamber. It was made clear to the parties that the present proceedings would not be converted into custody proceedings in respect of the minor child, and the said issue necessarily would have to be decided by the Family Court concerned in appropriate proceedings. After hearing learned counsels at some length, we suggested to the parties an interim- without prejudice arrangement, keeping in mind the welfare of the minor child and the concerns of the parties with regard to her welfare. Since the hearing on merits was still underway and the matter was being dealt practically on a day to day basis, we had not recorded a detailed order on 05.03.2018, lest it prejudices the case of either party. The matter was adjourned to 07.03.2018, and thereafter to 08.03.2018.

4. On the said date, respondent No. 4 sought an adjournment which we were not inclined to grant. We informed respondent No. 4 that in case he does want an adjournment to engage another counsel, he should be willing to handover the custody of the minor child, in the interregnum, without prejudice to his rights and till the matter is heard, to the petitioner. Eventually, respondent No.4 produced the infant child Baby Raina who was handed over to the petitioner subject to the certain conditions.

5. At this stage, we may reproduce an extract from our order dated 08.03.2018 which captures some of the relevant facts, some submissions of the petitioner, and narration of the proceedings which had taken place before the Court till the passing of the said order. The same reads as follows:

“1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of habeas corpus, i.e. to seek a direction to the respondents to produce her minor daughter Raina in the Court and to set her at liberty in the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner is the mother of the child Raina, who is one year old. She was born on 23.02.2017 to the petitioner and respondent no.4. Unfortunately, the petitioner earlier suffered two miscarriages and, consequently, Raina was born through surrogacy.

2. The petitioner and respondent no.4 experienced marital disputes and differences. In December 2017, the petitioner had planned to travel to USA with her minor daughter on an annual holiday. However, since the petitioner could not secure the visa for the child‘s nanny, the said trip was delayed. In the meantime, the father of respondent no.4, Ajey Lohia – who was initially impleaded as respondent no.5 in the petition, requested the petitioner if he could take Raina along with the maid from Delhi to Thailand for a four day family trip. The petitioner was driven into giving her consent on the emotional plea that that the father - Ajey Lohia was a cancer survivor, and did not have much time to live and spend time with his granddaughter.

3. According to the