The custody issue is dynamic and requires re-consideration at an appropriate stage, and the court's findings were not a final opinion on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 02.12.2018 in Delhi as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After the marriage, the couple went to London. Minor Child Inayat Mahajan took birth on 02.07.2012. Petitioner and the respondent are British citizens and are having status of Indian overseas citizens. Minor Inayat Mahajan now aged 15 years is also British citizen. The couple could not go ahead with the matrimonial ties and ultimately, got separated vide divorce dated 04.09.2014 passed by Central Family Court, London. An amicable settlement was done.

3. Heads of terms of agreement and settlement were recorded. It was mutually agreed and declared on 11.09.2014 by the parties (couple) as under:-

"1. The father and mother have each taken separate and independent legal advice on the matters referred to in these Heads of Terms.

2. There have been up to now differences between the father and the mother as to residence and contact in respect of the child of the family Inayat Mahajan (date of birth 2nd July 2012) resulting in the mother issuing an application under the Children Act for a prohibited steps order and the father issuing an application under the Children Act 1989 for Residence and Contact.

3. The mother has been served with the father's application for a residence and contact application which is currently being processed by the Court and a hearing date is awaited.

4. Furthermore the mother in conjunction with the application for a prohibited steps order made a free standing application for an injunction against non-molestation and a restraining order prohibiting the father from entering the Former Matrimonial Home at 15 Cape Yard Kennet Street London E1W2JU.

5. The mother as from the date sets out below consents to the application both as to residence and contact and acknowledges and affirms that the child of the Family Inayat Mahajan shall forthwith reside exclusively with the father.

6. The mother invites the Court to make an order granting Residence to the father and will sign such consent application or other any documentation required of her by the father or the Court to provide that the father do have residence of the child of the Family Inayat Mahajan.

7. The mother further acknowledges and by these Heads of Terms gives full consent to the father that if he chooses to live and or work abroad that she gives full consent to the father taking the child of the Family Inayat Mahajan out of the jurisdiction of England and Wales and she will support any application required of the father to seek permission of the Courts to remove the child of the Family Inayat Mahajan from its jurisdiction.

8. The father acknowledges and accepts that the mother shall be entitled to have contact to the child of the Family Inayat Mahajan at times to be mutually agreed between the father and the mother. During school holiday's, the father agrees that the mother can have child of the Family Inayat Mahajan for upto 3 weeks on mutually agreed dates, provided the mother collects Inayat Mahajan and mother returns Inayat Mahajan in the custody of the father.

9. The mother hereby further consents that she will make an application forthwith to the Courts to withdraw the prohibited steps order and the injunction both as to non-molestation and the father entering the Former Matrimonial Home. The father accepting that he should not unless invited by the mother return to or enter the Former Matrimonial Home save otherwise than for the purposes of collecting and delivering the child of the Family Inayat Mahajan when the mother has contact."

4. Thereafter, the application filed by the respondent seeking an ex parte nonmolestation and occupation was dismissed by the East Cen