The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, with habeas corpus requiring proof of illegal custody and availability of remedies, which were absent in this case.

1. Writ petition along with two connected applications are taken up for final disposal.

2. Writ petitioner as the father of the minor seeks a direction upon the police to produce his minor daughter in a Court of law. He also seeks a direction on his wife, the respondent No. 5, to hand over temporary custody of their daughter to the writ petitioner.

3. Two interim applications were filed by the writ petitioner. One is CAN 1 of 2024 in which, writ petitioner seeks modification of the directions given in paragraphs 5 to 11 of the order dated February 22, 2024 and a direction that the minor may be examined / evaluated by a qualified clinical Psychologist at Bengaluru or New Delhi. The other application is also interim application and at the behest of the writ petitioner which is CAN 2 of 2024 where, the writ petitioner seeks a direction to advance the date of the hearing.

4. Writ petition along with two interim applications were heard extensively on August 29, 2024. In view of the agreement of the parties on such date, we modified paragraph 12 of the order dated February 22, 2024. We are informed that, one meeting took place pursuant to our order dated August 29, 2024 between the writ petitioner and the child in the interregnum.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, child in question is a nine - year girl child with Autism Spectrum Level - III since 2018. Since 2017, parents of the child along with the child were living in the United States of America till the respondent no. 5 removed the girl child to India in late 2023.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner points out that the minor underwent primary schooling at the United States of America and is only familiar with the social and cultural milieu of the United States. Minor was under extensive treatment, including regular requisite therapies since 2018. Minor at her age of three years was diagnosed with being on the spectrum. All expenses pertaining to the child since birth, such as educational, medical or otherwise were provided by the petitioner singularly. She points out that, medical insurance in United States of America covers all expenses without any upper limit. Moreover, in India insurance coverage in respect of autistic persons are restrictive.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, there is no material on record to establish that the medical treatment mandatorily required by the minor is being provided to her in India. She points out that there is a report dated February 7, 2024 which, according to her, falsely projected as if a purported homely environment is available to the minor at present. She refers to the order dated January 19, 2024 passed by the High Court which directs psychologist to assess if any treatment is required by the minor. She refers to the report dated January 8, 2024 and the final report dated February 7, 2024. She contends that, the final report is conspicuous by the absence of any effort by the psychologist to speak on the issue as to whether the nature of treatment available in the United States of America could be more beneficial to the minor or not.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the psychologist did not meet the writ petitioner. Psychologist did not interact with the writ petitioner. Therefore, the report prepared by the psychologist is suspect. She refers to the prescription of R.G. Kar. Medical Hospital, which according to her are mere visit notes which indicate no physical behavioral developmental therapies being provided to the child. Therefore, according to her, minor is not being provided with the best medical treatment which the petitioner can