$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dateof decision:-29^th July, 2024.

+ W.P.(CRL) 2117/2024, CRL.M.As.20564/2024 & 20565/2024 HARIOM KAUSHIK .....Petitioner Through: MrJatanSingh,MrSiddharthSingh,Mr TusharLamba,MrRavinRao,MrAyan Sharma, Ms Vanshika Adhana, Ms Sangeeta Singh, Mr Pallavi Gupta, Mr AkshitSawal&MrKunalVason,Advs. (M: 9810041079) with Petitioner in person. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.

Akash Mishra, Advs. for R-5/UOI. (M:

9891088658)

Mr.Sanjay Lao, SC(Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal & Mr. Abhinav Kr.

Arya, Advs. with Insp. Manoj, PS Shalimar Bagh.

Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. M. Begum, Mr. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Ishaan Jain and Mr. Harsh Choudhary, Advs. for R-6 to 9. (M: 9999332944)

Respondent No.7 alongwith child in person.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMITSHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. ThepresentwritpetitionhasbeenfiledbythePetitionerunderArticle226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce his daughter who is 4 years old before this Court.

W.P.(CRL)2117/2024 Page1of4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has not met his daughter since October 2023. According to the Petitioner, he and his wife-Neha Verma i.e. Respondent No.6 have marital discord, pursuant to which she took the daughter and travelled to Germany on 6th January,2023.

4. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that he also went to Germany and tried to resolve the issues, and he last met his wife and daughter in March 2024. Thereafter, however, there has been considerable deterioration in relations and the RespondentNo.6 is not allowing him to meet the daughter.

5. Respondent No. 6 and daughter of the Petitioner are now in India and he has sought production of his daughter, with whom he has not met for the last several months.

6. Astatusreportdated16thJuly,2024washandedoverinCourtonthelast date of hearing and the same was taken on record.

7. As per the said status report counselling sessions are being held at the Child and Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 but the daughter has not been produced there.

8. On 16th July, 2024, the wife-Respondent No.6 had appeared alone and hadinformedtheCourtthatshewishestotravelbacktoGermanyon2ndAugust, 2024 to join back her job at M/s. GIZ GmBH in Eschborn, Germany. On the said date, the Court directed some meetings to be held under the aegis of the DelhiHigh CourtMediation and Conciliation Centrebetween thePetitioner and the child and had also directed that the child shall be produced before the Court on the next date of hearing.

9. RespondentNo.6hasappearedalongwiththechild. ThePetitionerisalso present.

10. The Court had interacted with them in Chamber on 26^th July 2024 and again in the Court today.

W.P.(CRL)2117/2024 Page2of4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

11. There is matrimonial discord between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6. The issue relating to the child has been discussed with both the parents. ThePetitionerstatesthatheisworkingonacontractualbasisinBMW, India. The Petitioner wishes to and is willing to start living with his wife and daughter again, however Respondent No.6 opposes any reconciliation in the marriage. She is clear that she does not wish to cause any rift between the daughter and thePetitioner and is willing to facilitate their meetings.

12. Considering the fact that the child is already studying in Germany and staying with hermother comfortably,the child shall continue to remain with the mother until any orders are passed by the Competent Court under the Guardianship and Wards Act or any other applicable law.

13. The wife shall facilitate the Petitioner-father to speak to the child on a dailybasisonvideocall,atleastforonehour,sothatthebondbetweenthe