ANAND RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of his minor daughter Nethra who has been illegally and unlawfully removed from the custody of the petitioner from the United Kingdom(UK).

(2.) Petitioner is the father and the natural guardian of Nethra who is six years of age. As per the petition, the petitioner is a UK citizen and holds a British Passport. The petitioner came to UK in the year 2003 as a student and since 2005 he has been working in UK Petitioner married respondent no.2 on 30.11.2006 through a registered marriage and a formal wedding ceremony took place on 22.01.2007. Petitioner and respondent no.2 thereafter travelled to UK on 30.01.2007 with the intention to live in the UK permanently. Respondent no.2 was granted permanent residency and indefinite leave to remain in UK on 05.05.2010. The petitioner claims that respondent no.2 is a Masters in Communication, has a vast work experience in India and had a regular employment in UK from March, 2008 to June, 2010 with Media Reach Advertising Company, UK During her employment in UK, respondent no.2 was earning more than 25,000 pounds per annum.

(3.) The child was born as per the wishes of petitioner and respondent no.2 in India on 07.08.2009. The petitioner was not present at the time of Nethras birth but came to India on 12.08.2009 and spent three weeks in India. The petitioner again came back to India in December, 2009 and it was planned that both the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall return to UK together the next month. However, shortly before the departure, the respondent no.2 decided to remain in India for a further period of two months. The petitioner returned to England in early January, 2010 for his work reasons. The petitioner again traveled to India in March 2010 and accompanied Nethra and respondent No.2 to England in the same month. Although the relationship was largely harmonious, the petitioner noticed almost immediately that the attitude of respondent No.2 towards the petitioner had changed and respondent no.2 seemed distant towards the petitioner. On 08.08.2010, the respondent no.2 booked a ticket for her and her minor child Nethra to travel to India on 28.08.2010. Respondent no.2 gave no sign about when she would return to England. This was around the time of Nethras first birthday, a very auspicious occasion which is by tradition always celebrated at the home of childs father. The respondent no.2, on the other hand, made arrangements to celebrate Nethras first birth in Delhi with her family rather than with petitioner in London and after much persuasion and after her fathers intervention, the petitioner was permitted to celebrate this birthday with Nethra in the UK but the respondent No.2 told the petitioner that she would never allow petitioner to take Nethra to visit his parents in future. As per the petitioner, the petitioners family members have not seen Nethra since December, 2009.