AVIRAL MITTAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 04.11.2003. The parties set up their matrimonial home in U.K. as the petitioner was already working there since November, 2000. A child was born out of the said wedlock Ms.Elina who is now three and a half years old. Respondent No.2 also started working in U.K. The petitioner and respondent No.2 acquired the status of permanent residents of U.K. in the year 2004 prior to the birth of the child on 20.02.2006. The child acquired British passport though the parents continued to hold Indian passports.

(2.) The pleadings in the present petition show that there were some problems in the marriage.

(3.) The allegation of the petitioner/husband is that respondent No.2/wife failed to take care of the child and was also not able to attend to her work properly while on the other hand respondent No.2 alleges that it is the petitioner who was least helpful and, in fact, needed psychiatric attention. It is, however, not necessary to go into all the details of allegations and counter allegations as the scope of the present proceedings is limited inasmuch as that the petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to respondent No.2 to produce the minor child and for grant of custody of the child to the petitioner. The facts leading up to this litigation are being further set out hereinafter.