JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Rosemarry Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel for the private respondent, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. Instant habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner no. 2 Abhishek Shukla on behalf of the corpus Arav Shukla, who is his minor son, against state respondent and respondent no. 3 (the mother of the corpus and wife of petitioner no. 2) with following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondent no. 3 to produce the petitioner no. 1 in the Hon’ble Court and thereafter the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give the custody of the petitioner no. 1 to the petitioner no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in petitioner no. 2 right to meet his son.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To allow the writ petition and award the cost in favour of the petitioner.

3. During pendency of present writ petition, an amendment application has been moved by petitioner no. 2 with prayer to add the prayer in writ petition at Sr. No. i-(a) in prayer clause of writ petition i.e. i-(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Authorities to produce the minor child namely Arav Shukla, a U.S. Citizen and direct the repatriation of the minor child back to U.S. in compliance of orders dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Superior Court of Washington, King County, U.S. being Case No. 20-3-04720-5-SEA-and also to deposit the passport of the minor child and other documents of the minor child which ought to be delivered to the petitioner no. 2 to enable the petitioner no. 2 to take minor child back to U.S.

4. At the time of final hearing of writ petition, learned counsel for the parties could not brought the attention of this Court towards amendment application which was filed on 21.9.2021, as no objection has been filed on this amendment application and proposed amendment appears to have been filed with a view to clarify the prayer made in writ petition in view of subsequent developments which took place after filing of writ petition, therefore, the amendment sought in amendment application will be treated as included in writ petition.

5. Factual matrix of the case are that present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner no. 2 with averment that he is permanent resident of District Kanpur Nagar (U.P.) and works as Software Engineer in U.S.A. at present. Petitioner no. 2 was married with respondent no. 3 Esha Pathak at G.B. Nagar on 6.3.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals and said marriage was registered under Marriage Registration Rules ,1973 at Kanpur Nagar on 20.12.2013, a copy of marriage certificate has been filed along with writ petition. The parents of petitioner no. 2 are residing at Kanpur Nagar. His academic qualification is B.Tech and M.S., whereas respondent no. 3, his wife, is M.B.A. The petitioner nos. 2 and respondent no. 3 after multiple discussions decided to go to America. Petitioner no. 2 even suggested the respondent no. 3 that if she wishes then she could stay in India for now and continue her career and thereafter both of them could reevaluate their situation and take a decision that best suited the interest of the family, however, respondent no. 3 did not concede to the proposal and forced petitioner no. 2 to take her to U.S.A. They reached there on 7.2.20215 but after arrival in U.S.A. respondent no. 3 got upset due to change in life style in U.S. She also did not adjust herself in U.S., being away from her parents. The son was born on 7th of December 2017 from the wedlock of petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 3 at Kirkland, King Country Washington in the hos