PARMINDER KAUR BRAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)

(2.) The petitioner has filed present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Indian for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for directing the release of detenue Inayat Brar minor daughter of the petitioner aged about 6 years (hereinafter referred to as 'the child') from illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 6 by appointment of a warrant officers with roving writ/direction to search the premises of respondents No.5 and 6 or any other place pointed out by the petitioner with direction to hand over her custody to the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought issuance of further direction to respondents No.4 to 6 to hand over the passport of the child to the petitioner.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petition has been filed on the averments that petitioner was married with respondent No.4 on 22.01.2011 at Abohar. The petitioner after clearing her IELTS settled at Canada in the year 2013 and after getting permanent residency status called her husband/respondent No.4 and they both settled at Canada. The child was born out of the wedlock on 28.07.2014 at Canada and passport was issued in her name by the Canadian Government which is valid upto 21.07.2021. Deteune Inayat Brar was admitted in Sikh Academy at Canada in Class KG3 for the session 2019-2020. The petitioner alongwith her husband-respondent No.4 and their minor daughter Inayat Brar came to India on 02.01.2020 to meet their parents and relatives. Due to call from the employer, the petitioner went back to Cananda on 25.01.2020 leaving her husband-respondent No.4 and the child in India. The petitioner came to India on 02.03.2020 and requested respondent No.4 to return to Canada but respondent No.4 conveyed his intention to stay in India due to Covid-19 on which the petitioner again went back to Canada and joined her duties. The petitioner came to India on 03.08.2020 and asked respondent No.4 to return to Canada alongwith the child but respondent No.4 refused. The petitioner also received e-mail dated 09.09.2020 from Sikh Academy Canada to bring the child to the school for the next academic session. Thereupon she visited her in-laws house at Village Chak Sherewala but the child was not present there. Respondent No.4 told her that the child had gone to the house of respondent No.5 at Sri Muktsar Sahib. The petitioner went to the house of respondent No.5 and found the child with respondents No.5 and 6. The child expressed her willingness to return with her to Canada but respondents No.5 and 6 did not allow the child to accompany the petitioner. Respondents No.4 to 6 have illegally detained the child and there is danger to her life from them.