CRWP-5847 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 311 Meghna Rana State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. of India, is for is official respondents to recover the minor Arhrava Kumar Singh, who has illegally been detained by respondent No. 4. 2. No. 3 - SHO, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula was directed to produce respondent No. 4 along compliance thereof, the minor child was produced before this Court on 04.06.2025 and since custody was given to the petitioner. 3. Court and he had interacted with his father/respondent No. 4 as well as with 5847-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Meghna Rana Versus Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Lalit Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Preeti Manderna, Advocate for respondent No. 4. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuing a writ in the nature of Ha official respondents to recover the minor Arhrava Kumar Singh, who has illegally been detained by respondent No. 4. Vide order dated 29.05.2025, passed by this Court, r SHO, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula was directed to produce respondent No. 4 along with the alleged detenue before this Court. In compliance thereof, the minor child was produced before this Court on 04.06.2025 and since he wanted to stay with his mother (petitioner), his custody was given to the petitioner. On the last date i.e. 14.07.2025, the minor child was Court and he had interacted with his father/respondent No. 4 as well as with -1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-5847-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Preeti Manderna, Advocate Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution suing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to recover the minor son of the petitioner, namely Arhrava Kumar Singh, who has illegally been detained by respondent No. 4. Vide order dated 29.05.2025, passed by this Court, respondent SHO, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula was directed to produce with the alleged detenue before this Court. In compliance thereof, the minor child was produced before this Court on wanted to stay with his mother (petitioner), his .2025, the minor child was present in Court and he had interacted with his father/respondent No. 4 as well as with 1- 2025 (O&M) 15.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution beas Corpus directing the petitioner, namely Arhrava Kumar Singh, who has illegally been detained by respondent No. 4. espondent SHO, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula was directed to produce with the alleged detenue before this Court. In compliance thereof, the minor child was produced before this Court on wanted to stay with his mother (petitioner), his present in Court and he had interacted with his father/respondent No. 4 as well as with MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.16 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5847 the Ms. Garima, Counsellor. This Court had also interacted with the child in the chamber of this Court. What transpired from all this was tha willing to stay with his mother only. 4. No. 4-Arun Kumar Singh had filed a petition bearing number CRWP-8059 habeas corpus for release of the minor child from the custody of his mother and grandparents. detailed order on under: 5847-2025 (O&M) the Ms. Garima, Counsellor. This Court had also interacted with the child in the chamber of this Court. What transpired from all this was tha willing to stay with his mother only. It would be apposite to mention here that previously, respondent Arun Kumar Singh had filed a petition bearing number 8059-2024 before this Court seeking issuanc habeas corpus for release of the minor child from the custody of his mother and grandparents. The said petition was dismissed by this Court detailed order on 11.11.2024. The operative part of the said order reads as 8. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 2 is the biological mother of alleged detenue, who was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Hence, it cannot be stated that his custody with respondent No. 2 is illegal in any manner. There is nothing on record to show that before the event of respondent No. 2 coming to India along with the child on 30.04.2021, the petitioner had filed any appropriate petition before the jurisdictional Court at US custody of the minor child and was either given his custody or was given some visitation rights, so that it can be stated that by separating the child from the petitioner or denying his visitation rights, respondent No. 2 has defied the said order. Although, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 25.07.2023 showing that the jurisdictional Court at Florida had given him the parental responsibility of the child but it is not disputed that the said order was passed absence of respondent No. 2 as she had been residing in India since April, 2021. So far as the principles of comity -2 the Ms. Garima, Counsellor. This Court had also interacted with the child in the chamber of this Court. What transpired from all this was that the child was It would be apposite to mention here that previously, respondent Arun Kumar Singh had filed a petition bearing number 2024 before this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature habeas corpus for release of the minor child from the custody of his mother The said petition was dismissed by this Court by passing a . The operative part of the said order reads as 8. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 2 is the biological mother of alleged detenue, who was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Hence, it cannot be stated that his pondent No. 2 is illegal in any manner. There is nothing on record to show that before the event of respondent No. 2 coming to India along with the child on 30.04.2021, the petitioner had filed any appropriate petition before the jurisdictional Court at USA seeking custody of the minor child and was either given his custody or was given some visitation rights, so that it can be stated that by separating the child from the petitioner or denying his visitation rights, respondent No. 2 has defied r. Although, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 25.07.2023 showing that the jurisdictional Court at Florida had given him the parental responsibility of the child but it is not disputed that the said order was passed ex-parte, that too in the absence of respondent No. 2 as she had been residing in India since April, 2021. So far as the principles of comity 2- the Ms. Garima, Counsellor. This Court had also interacted with the child in t the child was It would be apposite to mention here that previously, respondent Arun Kumar Singh had filed a petition bearing number e of a writ in the nature habeas corpus for release of the minor child from the custody of his mother by passing a . The operative part of the said order reads as 8. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 2 is the biological mother of alleged detenue, who was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Hence, it cannot be stated that his pondent No. 2 is illegal in any manner. There is nothing on record to show that before the event of respondent No. 2 coming to India along with the child on 30.04.2021, the petitioner had filed any appropriate A seeking custody of the minor child and was either given his custody or was given some visitation rights, so that it can be stated that by separating the child from the petitioner or denying his visitation rights, respondent No. 2 has defied r. Although, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 25.07.2023 showing that the jurisdictional Court at Florida had given him the sole parental responsibility of the child but it is not disputed that too in the absence of respondent No. 2 as she had been residing in India since April, 2021. So far as the principles of comity MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.16 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5847 5847-2025 (O&M) of Courts are concerned, obviously the C jurisdiction should hono or laws of another jurisdiction, provided such actions do not violate public policy or sovereignty. This concept is grounded in international and inter cooperation, ensuring that rulings of foreign or external C However, at the same time, when an passed by a foreign Court, the Court in another jurisdiction needs to be more careful and should scrutinize if the same meets certain criteria, such as fairness, due process and opportunity of hearing to both the parties. More so, the order dated 25.07.2023 can be executed only when respondent No.2 goes back to USA along with the child. However, no such direction can be issued to respondent No. 2, being an adult. with the child in the retiring room and tender in age and totally immature to be able to form any independent opinion of his own as to which parent he should stay with. So far as the ratio of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, same is not disputed at all. However, the same is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as in those cases, it was held that a writ of habeas corpus can be issued when the child has away by one of the natural guardians by playing a fraud upon the another or the child was detained by either of the parents illegally and without any authority of law, which is not so in the present case. and circumstances, it is held that no direction can be issued to private respondents to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner. -3 of Courts are concerned, obviously the Courts in one honour and enforce judicial decisions other jurisdiction, provided such actions do not violate public policy or sovereignty. This concept is grounded in international and inter-jurisdictional cooperation, ensuring that Courts give deference to the rulings of foreign or external Courts when appropriate. However, at the same time, when an ex-parte order is passed by a foreign Court, the Court in another jurisdiction needs to be more careful and should scrutinize if the same meets certain criteria, such as fairness, due process and hearing to both the parties. More so, the order dated 25.07.2023 can be executed only when respondent No.2 goes back to USA along with the child. However, no such direction can be issued to respondent This Court had even an interacti the retiring room and found him to be too tender in age and totally immature to be able to form any independent opinion of his own as to which parent he So far as the ratio of law laid down in the n by the petitioner is concerned, same is not disputed at all. However, the same is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as in those cases, it was held that a writ of habeas corpus can be issued when the child has been taken away by one of the natural guardians by playing a fraud upon the another or the child was detained by either of the parents illegally and without any authority of law, which is not so in the present case. Hence, in the totality of the facts circumstances, it is held that no direction can be issued to private respondents to hand over the custody of the child 3- ourts in one r and enforce judicial decisions other jurisdiction, provided such actions do not violate public policy or sovereignty. This concept is jurisdictional ourts give deference to the ropriate. order is passed by a foreign Court, the Court in another jurisdiction needs to be more careful and should scrutinize if the same meets certain criteria, such as fairness, due process and hearing to both the parties. More so, the order dated 25.07.2023 can be executed only when respondent No.2 goes back to USA along with the child. However, no such direction can be issued to respondent This Court had even an interaction found him to be too tender in age and totally immature to be able to form any independent opinion of his own as to which parent he So far as the ratio of law laid down in the n by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not disputed at all. However, the same is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as in those cases, it was held that a writ of been taken away by one of the natural guardians by playing a fraud upon the another or the child was detained by either of the parents illegally and without any authority of law, which is Hence, in the totality of the facts circumstances, it is held that no direction can be issued to private respondents to hand over the custody of the child MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.16 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5847 5. filing a Writ Petition (Criminal) Supreme Court. However, the said petition had been dismissed, vide order dated 15.01.2025 It was in this backdrop that respondent No. 4 has strategicall taken over the custody of the child on 28.05.2025 as soon as he got down from his school bus and now he is claiming that since he is natural guardian of the child, the custody of the child cannot be held illegal with him. conduct of respondent No. 4 is in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court, wherein it was directed that the custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner/mother the issue of hesitation to say that the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same is also contemptuous. 6. petition is allowed. The custody of the minor child is handed over to the 5847-2025 (O&M) 9. In view of the discussion as made above and without making any comment on the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against each other, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the petitioner to issue any direction to the private respondents for handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present is di merit. 10. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. Respondent No. 4 had challenged the abovementioned order by filing a Writ Petition (Criminal) bearing No. 12 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said petition had been dismissed, vide order dated 15.01.2025, thereby upholding the aforesaid order passed by this Court. It was in this backdrop that respondent No. 4 has strategicall taken over the custody of the child on 28.05.2025 as soon as he got down from his school bus and now he is claiming that since he is natural guardian of the child, the custody of the child cannot be held illegal with him. conduct of respondent No. 4 is in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court, wherein it was directed that the custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner/mother till the time the the issue of permanent custody of the child. hesitation to say that the act of respondent No. 4 is not only in defiance of the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same is also contemptuous. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The custody of the minor child is handed over to the -4 9. In view of the discussion as made above and without making any comment on the allegations and counter made by the parties against each other, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the petitioner to issue any direction to the private respondents for handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present is dismissed, being devoid of any 10. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. Respondent No. 4 had challenged the abovementioned order by bearing No. 12 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said petition had been dismissed, vide order , thereby upholding the aforesaid order passed by this Court. It was in this backdrop that respondent No. 4 has strategically and forcefully taken over the custody of the child on 28.05.2025 as soon as he got down from his school bus and now he is claiming that since he is natural guardian of the child, the custody of the child cannot be held illegal with him. The said conduct of respondent No. 4 is in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court, wherein it was directed that the custody of the child shall remain till the time the appropriate forum finally decides permanent custody of the child. In view thereof, this Court has no act of respondent No. 4 is not only in defiance of the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same is w of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The custody of the minor child is handed over to the 4- 9. In view of the discussion as made above and without making any comment on the allegations and counter made by the parties against each other, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the petitioner to issue any direction to the private respondents for handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner. smissed, being devoid of any 10. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. Respondent No. 4 had challenged the abovementioned order by bearing No. 12 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said petition had been dismissed, vide order , thereby upholding the aforesaid order passed by this Court. y and forcefully taken over the custody of the child on 28.05.2025 as soon as he got down from his school bus and now he is claiming that since he is natural guardian of The said conduct of respondent No. 4 is in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court, wherein it was directed that the custody of the child shall remain appropriate forum finally decides this Court has no act of respondent No. 4 is not only in defiance of the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same is w of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The custody of the minor child is handed over to the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.16 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5847 petitioner, who is natural guardian/mother of the child. However, it shall be open for the parties to move a petition seeking before appropriate forum. 15.07.2025 Waseem Ansari 5847-2025 (O&M) petitioner, who is natural guardian/mother of the child. However, it shall be open for the parties to move a petition seeking before appropriate forum. 15.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5 petitioner, who is natural guardian/mother of the child. However, it shall be open for the parties to move a petition seeking permanent custody of the child (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 5- petitioner, who is natural guardian/mother of the child. However, it shall be permanent custody of the child MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.16 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document