Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - Heard.

2. Joint statement of the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been recorded separately and is placed on record.

Prayer in Criminal Writ Petition:

3. The instant habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner - Karan Singh Bajwa against respondent Jasmine Bajwa wife and Jasbir Singh Sandhu father-in-law for production, release and return of the minor children, namely, Kundani Bajwa, daughter and Harman Singh Bajwa, son (hereinafter to be referred as “the children”), who have acquired permanent resident status by immigration to Canada. The averments in petition are that the children have been illegally, wrongfully detained by respondent no.1 Mr. Jasbir Singh Sandhu father-in-law and respondent no.2 -wife Ms Jasmine Bajwa, allegedly contrary to the sole custody and restriction orders dated 01.01.2012 (date of orders is incorrectly mentioned in this petition) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada vide Annexures P/18 and P/19, correct date of these orders is dated 01.08.2012, made without notice to Ms. Jasmine.

Interim Orders of this Court:

4. This Court after perusing the documents on paper book submitted to this Court and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner passed the following order on 07.08.2012:

“Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is father of minor Harman Singh Bajwa, born on 22.11.2006 and Kundani Bajwa, born on 31.12.2001. Harman Singh Bajwa was born in Canada and Kundani Bajwa was born in India, but has adopted Canada as a country of permanent resident. The petitioner is also a permanent resident of Canada and presently is in full time regular employment as a Senior Chief Engineer with British Columbia Ferries at British Columbia, Canada. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the age of Harman Singh Bajwa is 6 years, so even under the Custody laws of India, custody vests in the father. Similar is the position of Kundani Bajwa. Learned counsel further contends by referring to various documents that the children have studied in the various schools at British Columbia, Canada. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the children from their childhood have resided in Canada and have acquired the habits and culture of that country. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the children and mother (respondent No.2) had come to India for enjoying holidays from 22.06.2012 to 03.08.2012 and the air tickets have been issued for this very visit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in fact, respondent No.1 in connivance with respondent No.2 is not permitting the children to come out and even the very visit which was as a picnic for them had been spoiled for them. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had approached the Canadian Court wherein orders (Annexure P/18 and P/19) have been passed wherein it has been held that the children, namely, Harman Singh Bajwa and Kundani Bajwa are habitual residents of Canada and even the movements of the children out of Canada has been restrained. Learned counsel further contends that as per orders (Annexures P/18 and P/19), the custody of the children solely vests in the father. During most of the period, except the period from 24.06.2012 till date, they have been in Canada. As per the Canadian Laws, as well as, Indian Laws as applicable to the petitioner and respondent No.2, petitioner is entitled to the custody even the custody, vests in the petitioner.

Notice of motion for 09.08.2012.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the Harman Singh Bajwa is a Canadian citizen, a notice may be issued to the Consulate General of Canada, Chandigarh as they have already intervened. On the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, Consulate General of Canada, Chandigarh is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No.5 and notice be issued to him. The address of respondent No.5 will be