JUDGMENT

Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, to protect the life and liberty of Tarini Vijaya Nathan (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tarini' ), daughter of the petitioner from forced/illegal custody of respondent No. 5, who has been confined at the present address of respondent No. 5.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a citizen of United States of America and is a non-resident Indian. He is also an Overseas Citizen of India as per Section 7-A of CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955. The petitioner has been living in United States of America since April 1970 and is working as Associate Consultant for TCS under contract, whereas respondent No. 5, who is the wife of the petitioner is not working. As per the petitioner, he got married to Ms. Sanjana Chauhan, respondent No. 5, who was resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA on 25.08.2010 under the Civil Law of State of Philadeplphia, Pennsylvania. As per the petitioner, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were not married as per the provisions of any Indian law and their marriage was governed by the Laws of the State of New York USA and the Civil Code of New York, USA. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 are domicile of USA and even respondent No. 5 is an applicant for U.S. Citizenship. On 14.02.2012, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were blessed with a daughter Tarini in Gurugram, Haryana, India. However, after her birth, she was taken to USA and she acquired her USA Citizenship on 03.04.2012. Since the time of her birth the daughter of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had been living with her parents from October 2012 to November 2022 and she attended various schools in USA. When Tarini was aged about 02 years, she was diagnosed of Autism and had been in autism related services since October 2014 in USA. Still further, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 stayed together till 05.05.2020, when respondent No. 5 made false allegations against the petitioner and called the police and thereafter they separated. Even after separation, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 was stayed in New York USA. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 was in the habit of making false and unfounded allegations against the petitioner, so, the matter was referred to Family Service Unit and a detailed report dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure P-7) was submitted and as per the said report, Tarini was observed to be extremely happy, when she saw her father Mr. Nathan, i.e., the petitioner. However, on 08.12.2020, the respondent No. 5 filed a divorce petition before the Supreme Court of New York and notice was duly served on the petitioner. As per the learned senior counsel, the respondent No. 5 had voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of Supreme Court of New York City as both the parties are domiciles of USA and the Supreme Court of New York was competent to decide the matter related to interim and permanent alimony as well as custody of Tarini. Apart from that, since the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court of New York City, various interim orders were passed from time to time. Apart from that, the respondent No. 5 had also filed a domestic violence complaint against the petitioner, however, her complaint was ordered to be dismissed by New York Criminal Court. Further, during the divorce proceedings, the Court granted custody and visitation rights to the petitioner to