JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to get the alleged detenue, who is son of the petitioner, released from the illegal custody of respondents No. 2 to 4 and hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner, who is an NRI, residing in USA, was married to respondent No. 2-Meghna Rana on 25.11.2015. Soon after the marriage, both of them left for USA on 15.12.2015. While residing in USA, they were blessed with a male child on 14.02.2018, namely Atharva Kumar Singh, who being born in USA, is an American citizen. However, the relations between the parties became strained and sour, for which, both of them started accusing each other. In the petition, the petitioner has also alleged that respondent No. 2 had made false allegations against the petitioner of harassing and subjecting her to cruelty. Rather, it was respondent No. 2, who had mistreated the petitioner and even caused injuries to him, while subjecting him to mental and psychological torture. Eventually, they separated on 09.04.2021 and respondent No. 2 flew back to India along with the Child on 30.04.2021. The petitioner had filed a petition before jurisdictional Court at Florida and vide order dated 25.07.2023, the petitioner was awarded sole parental responsibility of the child. He had also filed a petition alleging domestic violence against him, caused by respondent No. 2 but the same was rejected on 10.07.2023 on the ground that the alleged acts of domestic violence had occurred approximately four years ago and the incidents were too remote to support an entry of an injunction. While mentioning several instances in this petition when the petitioner was harassed and humiliated by respondents No. 2 to 4 and that respondent No. 2 has abducted his minor son, it is prayed that a writ of habeas corpus be issued directing respondent No. 2 to hand over the custody of the child to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, being natural guardian of the child, is legally entitled to get his custody. The child has been forcefully detained by respondent No. 2, who is not taking his proper care and for the welfare and well being of the child, his custody must be handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities cited as Gippy Arora vs. State of Punjab, CRWP-543-2008, decided on 22.12.2008, Manju Tiwari vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari (SC) : AIR 1990 SC 1156, Gohar Begam vs. Suggi @ Nazma Begam (1960) 1 SCC 597 and Tejaswani Gaud and ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and ors. : Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2019 to submit that a habeas corpus writ petition is maintainable for seeking custody of a child, who is illegally detained by someone. While submitting that the petitioner, being father, is legally entitled to get the custody of his son, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Reply, on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4, has been filed. While denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, it is submitted therein and learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 has argued that although the petitioner has obtained a decree of divorce against her from Circuit Court of Seventh Judicial Circuit at St. Johns County, Florida but the same is not applicable between them being ex-parte order. Respondent No. 2 has filed three litigations i.e. a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as well as a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Courts at Panchkula in India but despite having knowledge about the same, the petitioner has not appeared in any of the proceedings and has