The natural guardian's custody cannot be deemed illegal under Habeas Corpus jurisdiction, and custody matters must be resolved through appropriate legal channels.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner imputes that his son has been taken away by the 4^th respondent, but conceding that she is his mother. He says that he and his wife are estranged; and that taking advantage of this scenario, the 4^th respondent has taken away the child to an undisclosed location outside India, denying him any opportunity to meet/talk to him. He says that he was able to manage only a brief conversation with his son through an internet platform; and that, therefore, he has been left without any other option, but to approach this Court through this Writ Petition, not only to secure his child’s company, but also to ensure that his life is protected and best welfare for him obtained.

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner –Smt.Parvathy Menon, on the afore lines on 16.04.2025, this Court had issued notice to the party respondents.

3. Thereafter, this matter was listed on 06.05.2025, on which day, another Bench of this Court passed the following order.

The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that unfortunately the 4th respondent is unable to indicate the date on which the child will be brought back to her native place as she has now obtained an employment and she is not in a position to travel to India along with the child for the next 6 months.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is left without any remedy as the 4th respondent had taken away the child outside India without permission of the petitioner. It is submitted that steps may be taken to impound the Passport of the 4th respondent and that of the minor child so that they will be forced to come back to India immediately.

3. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the child was taken outside India after informing the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, we are of the view that the 4th respondent must be directed to ensure that the child is brought back to India as directed in the interim order dated 25-04-2025. Therefore, we are inclined to pass an order directing the competent authority of the Central Government to take steps to impound the Passport of the 4th respondent as also the Passport of her minor child.

5. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent states that no order may be issued to impound the Passports and submits that the matter may be adjourned to enable her to obtain instructions and inform this court regarding the earliest date on which the 4th respondent can return to India along with her child. Accordingly list this matter for further consideration on 23-05-2025.

4. Today, the 4^th respondent and the child were present before us, as also the petitioner.

5. The 4^th respondent submitted that she was forced to leave India, to take up a job abroad because she has no financial independence otherwise; and since she is not obtaining any financial assistance from the petitioner. She further informed us certain incidents between the couple, but we choose not to record them in the judgment since it is beyond the consideration of this Court.

6. The child was initially clutching onto the 4^th respondent-mother, but with a fair amount of persuasion from our side, he spent some time with the petitioner-father, though was sometimes crying during the said period of interaction. We do not propose to be judgmental of the conduct of the child because, he may be behaving in this manner on account of various past circumstances and situations, including that he has been forced to come to Court.

7. Be that as it may, we are called upon to consider whether the child is in the illegal custody of the 4^th respondent.

8. It is conceded that the 4^th respondent is the mother and hence natural guardian of the child. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent has taken away the child without his permission to a location outside India. Even if no, we do not under