VARUN VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for production of his minor child Kiyara Verma. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he got married to respondent no.3 on 11.07.2016 at Kota. Thereafter, petitioner and his wife left for America on 17.07.2016 and they started residing there. Out of their wedlock, a daughter, namely Kiyara Verma was born on 03.05.2017. Some differences arose between the petitioner and respondent no.3. On 29.08.2018 respondent no.3 instituted a petition in 'Norfolk Juvenile and Domestis Relations District Court' seeking sole custody of the minor child. A petition was also filed by respondent no.3 seeking monetary support on her behalf and on behalf of her minor child. On 26.09.2018, interim order was passed by the Court Annexure P-9 in terms of the agreement between the parties. On 01.10.2018, petitioner came to know that the respondent no.3 had reached India along with the minor child. Hence, this petition by the petitioner. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent no.3. Efforts were made by this Court to effect amicable settlement between the parties for restoration of matrimonial relations but the same proved futile.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order Annexure P-9 was passed by the Court in America as per agreement between the parties. Petitioner and respondent no.3 were granted joint legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the child. Petitioner as well as respondent no.3 were to surrender their passports as well as passport of minor child to guardian adlitem. However, despite passing of the order Annexure P-9, respondent no.3 left for India and did not honour the order Annexure P-9. Learned counsel has submitted that respondent no.3 was liable to be return to America along with minor child so that further orders could be passed by the Court in America. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 3135-3136/2019 titiled as Lahari Sakhamuri Vs. Sobhan Kodali decided on 15.03.2019, wherein, it was held as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed as respondent no.3 was the natural guardian of the child. It was in the best interest of the child who is aged about two years to live in the custody of her mother. By way of the present petition, petitioner was practically seeking execution of the order Annexure P-9, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs. State (NCT of DELHI) and Another in (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 454, decided on July 3, 2017, wherein, it was held as under:-