The need for appropriate legal proceedings before the competent authority in custody disputes, considering the minor's consent and the legal provisions under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

CRM-W-86 of 2018

1. This application has been filed for placing on record Annexures R-6 to R-26.

2. Application is allowed and Annexure R-6 to R-26 are taken on record.

CRWP No. 356 of 2018

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for searching the detenue, namely, Jaskirat Kaur Takhar, the minor daughter of the petitioner, who is stated to be Canadian citizen and has been detained by respondents No. 7 and 8 in connivance with respondent No. 9 at Hoshiarpur or any other place to be pointed out by the petitioner. A further prayer has also been made that said detenue be got released immediately and her custody be given to the petitioner with permission to go abroad with petitioner in view of consented order passed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner was married to respondent No.9 (Jagjit Singh Takhar) on 22.11.2006. While living in Canada, two children, namely, Jaskirat Kaur Takhar (daugther) and Kunwar Singh Takhar (son) were born out of the said wedlock on 30.1.2010 and 26.1.2011, respectively. Due to some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband, they were not in a position to pull on together. Respondent No. 9 filed a divorce petition against the petitioner before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. During the proceedings, the matter was settled between the parties. As per settlement dated 26.8.2012, Jaskirat Kaur Takhar (daugther) was to stay with the petitioner, whereas, custody of Kunwar Singh Takhar (son) was given to respondent No.9, which was duly signed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.9. After the settlement arrived at between the parties, a certificate of divorce was issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on 17.1.2013, which was made effective from October 27, 2012. Since the custody of minor Jaskirat Kaur Takhar was given to the petitioner, Care Card Personal Health being citizen of Canada was issued to the minor as she was born in Canada. Even social insurance number was also issued to the minor. Alleged detenue Jaskirat Kaur Takhar is also getting Child Tax benefit, Canada child benefit and petitioner is also depositing 50.00 dollars in Educational Monthly Plan. Furthermore, the petitioner is having Life Insurance of Half Million Dollars to which Jaskirat Kaur Takhar has been nominated as one of the nominee. After divorce between the petitioner and respondent No.9, the petitioner solemnized second marriage with one Jaswinder Singh on 8.11.2017. It is pertinent to mention that after 2012 till 2017, detenue-Jaskirat Kaur Takhar was residing with the petitioner but in the month of January, 2017 when the petitioner came to India along with detenue-Jaskirat Kaur Takhar, she was left with respondents No. 7 and 8. While the petitioner was residing in Canada, she was continuously sending money for her minor daughter, which is clear from the receipts annexed as Annexure P-6. After the second marriage, the petitioner was to go back, respondent No. 7 (brother of the petitioner) insisted that Jaskirat Kaur Takhar be allowed to stay with him to continue her session till March, 2018. The petitioner alone went to Canada and Jaskirat Kaur Takhar stayed in India with brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner. Meanwhile, respondent No. 9 (earlier husband) took her daughter with him from the custody of respondents No. 7 and 8. On knowing this fact, the petitioner came to India on 28.3.2018 and submitted an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiapur, which was marked to SHO, Police Station, NRI, Hoshiarpur for the purpose of getting warrant under Section 97 Cr.P.C.

5. As per case of the petitioner, respondents No. 7 and 8, who are her brother and sister-in-law have handed over the child to respondent No. 9 (earlier husband). In pursua