MEGHNA RANA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

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:

-2025 (O&M)

It would be apposite to mention here that previously, respondent -2024 before this Court seeking issuanc

The said petition was dismissed by this Court 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

t the child was e of a writ in the nature by passing a

A seeking

ex-parte, that too in the

-

sole

2 of 5

CRWP-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

ourts in one ur and enforce judicial decisions -jurisdictional

Courts give deference to the ourts when appropriate. ex-parte order is

This Court had even an interacti found him to be too

been taken

Hence, in the totality of the facts

-

on the

3 of 5

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

-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 bearing No. 12 of 2025 before the Hon'ble

, thereby upholding the aforesaid order passed by this Court. till the time the

permanent custody of the child.

act of respondent No. 4 is not only in defiance of the In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

-4

smissed, being devoid of any y and forcefully

The said

appropriate forum finally decides In view thereof, this Court has no

-

4 of 5

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

-2025 (O&M)

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

-5

permanent custody of the child

(MANISHA BATRA)

JUDGE

Yes/No Yes/No

-

5 of 5