HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The instant proceeding is at the behest of the mother of a minor girl for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the production of the minor girl before this Court but also her custody in her favour.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Philippine citizen and presently residing and working as kindergarten teacher in Hanoi, Vietnam. She developed a relationship with the opposite party No.1 and continued in such a live-in relationship for a pretty long time and of the said relationship, the said minor girl was born on 26^th November, 2023 in the city of Bengaluru, in the State of Karnataka, India. The birth certificate issued by the competent authority not only reflects the name of the opposite party No.1 as father, but also the petitioner as biological mother. The relationship subsequently got strained but the said minor girl remained in India as a citizen of this country and it is not disputed that the application for issuance of a passport in her favour was also applied, which was eventually granted on 1^st January, 2026.

3. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that she is not allowed to meet the minor girl, even on video calls and when she gets an opportunity to see the child on video calls with the help and assistance of the neighbours, she found that she is not being taken care of properly by the parents of the opposite party No.1. She alleged that the foundation leading to a strained relationship was founded upon a misrepresentation by the opposite party No.1, who suppressed his earlier relationship and a child therefrom.

4. She further averred in the instant writ petition that after giving birth to the child, she has discharged all her duties and responsibilities as a biological mother by providing daily cares including breastfeeding, nutrition, hygiene and bathing, medical care and vaccination. However, since the Visa granted to the petitioner was not extended rather rejected, she returned back to the country of her origin and, in the meantime, it was noticed that the opposite party No.1 has put the minor child into the custody of the grandparents, who later on found not to have taken care of the said child in proper manner. It is further alleged that the opposite party No.1 frequently travels to Singapore and other countries and he is in fact at Bengaluru when the child is kept in the custody of her grandparents at Jajpur within the State.

5. The opposite party No.1 refuted the stand of the petitioner in the counter affidavit so filed by contending that since he is employed with Lumen Technologies Singapore as a Principal Technology Architect, the Cyber-security APAC, he frequently visits his parental house and takes care of the child. It is further averred that the petitioner was well aware that the child is taken care of by the grandparents and, in fact, it was agreed by executing an agreement that the custody would remain with the opposite party No.1.

6. A specific stand is taken that the child is being well taken care of and, in fact, is going to the kindergarten school and all cares and precautions, which are required, are being ensured and, therefore, even if the petitioner is a biological mother, welfare of the child does not warrant the custody to be handed over to the petitioner. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner had children from the earlier marriage and those children are residing in the Philippines, whereas the petitioner is working in Vietnam on a work Visa and, therefore, being employed therein and in absence of any other person to take care of the said child during her professional engagement, it would not be conducive for the child to remain with her.

7. The opposite party No.1 relied upon the Whatsapp chats in support of the contention that the petitioner herself agreed the child to remain in the custody of the grandparents, as they are taking care of her in the best manner as expected from t