Custody decisions must prioritize the welfare of the child over the statutory rights of guardians, as seen in custody disputes. The petitioner's financial status cannot solely determine custody outcomes.

ORDER :

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ.) :

Factual matrix of the case:-

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the father of the minor son seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus for protection as also for custody of the minor son on the allegation of the minor being in illegal custody and detention of Respondent No.5, the maternal grandfather and Respondent No.6, the mother.

2. The petitioner-husband, in his petition has pleaded inter alia that his marriage with Respondent No.6 was solemnized on 15.02.2015 at Indore. After few days, the petitioner and Respondent No.6-wife/mother decided to move to Dubai where the petitioner was already working. From their wedlock, while the parties were residing at Dubai, a son was born on 23.06.2017 at Dubai. The mother of the child travelled to Jaipur from Dubai on 09.08.2017 and stayed there until she again came back. Further pleading reveals various events leading to differences and disputes, disturbing peace of married life. Respondent No. 6 again came to India along with minor son in the month of March, 2022. However, in a sudden turn of events, Respondent No.6 started making allegations against the petitioner and she refused to come back to Dubai with the child. The petitioner, thereafter, hurriedly came to India, but Respondent No.6 refused to meet or even allow the petitioner to meet the child. Respondent No.5, father of Respondent No.6 threatened the petitioner of dire consequences and, therefore, the petitioner had to return to Dubai alone on 08.04.2022. It is also pleaded that anticipating petitioner’s move to seek custody of minor child, Respondent No.6 lodged FIR against the petitioner and his family members on 23.04.2022 inter alia alleging dowry demand and domestic violence etc. Respondent No.6 and her parents are not allowing the petitioner to meet his child. The petitioner earns handsomely and lives an affluent life at Dubai where the son was born and enrolled in educational institution. Son is getting best education and all other facilities at Dubai. Respondent No.6 has illegally removed the child from Dubai and brought him to India without the consent of the father and is illegally retaining the custody of the child in India. She does not have financial capacity to maintain herself and the minor son and she is financially dependent on the petitioner for all her needs including needs of the child. As compared to the mother, the father is in a better position to provide far more better education and other facilities for the growth and development of the child. The petitioner filed a petition before the Dubai Court for obtaining the passport of the child from Respondent No.6 and an order in his favour was passed directing Respondent No.6 to return the passport of the child to the petitioner and the child was illegally removed from Dubai to India. The child is a natural res