JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - All cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to secure the release of her son, Advait Gupta, who is allegedly in the illegal custody of respondents no.5 to 9, specifically respondent no. 7, Minakshi Gupta, who claims to have legally adopted the child, with the consent of her husband, Sai Kiran (who is not a respondent in the petition).

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner unfortunately having been widowed in July 2019, respondents no.5 and 6 are her father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively.

However, the actual grievance of the petitioner as regards the custody of her son, is with respondents no.7 to 9, with the custody of the minor child, who is stated to have been born on 31.05.2019, being with respondent no.7, i.e. Minakshi Gupta.

2. It being a case of the custody of a small child, it is appropriate to notice here itself the proceedings before this court, before arguments were actually addressed by all learned counsel, as also to notice the residential status of respondent no. 7 and her husband.

Notice of motion having been issued, the respondents all appeared on January 31, 2020, with the matter adjourned for hearing to 12.02.2020, to enable the respondents to file a reply.

(All dates of hearing are also being referred to, in view of the fact that the case has taken about 8 months for a decision, it initially having gone before different benches and not one bench).

It is also to be noticed that on January 31, 2020, one Inspector Haroon Ahmad of Police Station, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, appeared before this court, though at the time that notice of motion was issued, there was no such direction issued; but seemingly it was through him that the notice issued was effected upon respondents no.8 to 10, who are shown to be residents of Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.

On that date too, all learned counsel in the petition made a request for an adjournment, with the matter therefore having been adjourned to March 03, 2020, on which date an issue seems to have been raised on whether or not jurisdiction under Article 226 (seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus), can be invoked, seeking custody of a minor child.

Eventually however, after the COVID-19 pandemic set in, the matter was taken up for hearing on June 05, 2020, for effective hearing.

3. In fact on that date, all learned counsel for the parties had stated that if the parties were directed to attempt mediation, the matter may actually be settled between them.

Consequently, the parties appeared before the learned Mediator in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court on 15.06.2020 but no settlement having been reached, it was ordered to be put up for final consideration (vide an order dated 08.07.2020), on August 07, 2020; but even on that date, the turn of the matter having come up late, counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 had sought an adjournment.

4. On 14.08.2020, Mr. Munjal, learned counsel for respondents no.7 to 10, had brought to the notice of this court documents annexed with the written statement of the said respondents, including what was stated to be an adoption deed (dated 03.12.2019), to submit that the petitioner having willingly given the child in adoption to respondent no.5 and her husband, Saikiran (he not being a respondent in the petition), she could not repudiate that adoption even in terms of Sections 12 and 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956 or as HAMA).

5. Countering that contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, on that date itself, had stated that the "adoption deeds" (including an affidavit dated 05.09.2019-Annexure R-7/3 with the reply of respondents no.7 to 10), having been signed by the petitioner under pressure, and she having appr