JUDGMENT 1. - This is a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother Smt. Saravjeet Kaur Mehmi for the custody of her minor daughter Kumari Meghna Preetima Singh (in short 'Meghna Singh'). 2. As per the allegations in the petition, the petitioner was married to Mahendra Pal Singh in United Kingdom on 26th January, 1982 and the girl Meghna Singh was born to the couple on 3rd June, 1983. Unfortunately, the relations between the husband and wife got strained, and the husband Mahendra Pal Singh removed the child from the custody of her mother with out her knowledge. Therefore, the petitioner had to initiate Wardship proceedings in the High Court of Justice (Family Division) U.K. where in the husband came with the case that he had left the child Meghna Singh with his mother Mrs. Jeeto Kaur at Bharomajara, Punjab. On 5-5-1987, a consent order was passed by the High Court of Justice (Family Division) U.K. There after, the petitioner came to India and met Mrs. Jeeto Kaur, mother of Mahendra Pal Singh, who told her that the child was not with her nor her son Mahendra Pal Singh met her after April, 1987. 3. Mahendra Pal Singh filed another affidavit dated 29th May, 1987 in the court at U.K. asserting that the child was with his mother. The petitioner contacted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. Tilak Chand Palawat and Mrs. Pushpa Palawat who were friends of Mahendra Pal Singh, but they also did not tell her regarding the where abouts of her daughter Meghna Singh. Since the petitioner had strong suspicion that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had full knowledge about the child, she filed this habeas corpus petition in this Court on 8th July, 1987, impleading the State of Rajasthan, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Supdt. of Police, Jaipur City, Mr. Tilak Chand Palawat and Mrs. Pushpa Palawat. 4. This petition came up for orders before us on 10th July, 1987. The petition was admitted and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to search the child Meghna Singh, and to produce her in court on the next date i.e. on 14-7-1987. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also directed to be present in person along with Kumari Meghna Singh. There was wide publicity in newspapers regarding this case, both published from Jaipur as well as from Delhi. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also directed to be present in person along with Kumari Meghna Singh. There was wide publicity in newspapers regarding this case, both published from Jaipur as well as from Delhi. The photographs of Meghna Singh as also that of the petitioner and her husband were published in the newspapers. On 13-7-1987, Mr. Virenra Dangi, Advocate, met us in the chamber and took permission for getting the case listed in supplementary as he wanted to produce the child in the court. The case was taken up on 13-7-1987 at 3.30 p.m. when the petitioner and her counsel, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar were also present. Shri Nupendra Singh produced the child Meghna Singh in court and also submitted an application stating there in that after reading the news item in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 12th July, 1987, and seeing the photograph of Meghna Singh as also that of her parents, he thought it proper to produce the child in the court. It was further stated in his application that Mahendra Pal Singh was known to him and that some time in the last week of April, 1987, he received a letter from Mahendra Pal Singh, photostat copy where of has been annexed with the petition as Schedule-A and same day Mahendra Pal Singh also came to Jaipur along with an old lady to whom he called to be his mother, and left the baby Meghna with him for a short duration and since then, Meghna Singh was with him. Since the next date fixed in the petition was 14th July, 1987, Nupendra Singh was requested to keep the custody of the child till further orders and he was asked to attend the court on 14-7-1987 along with the child Meghna Singh. On 14-7-1987, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted reply to the habeas corpus petition through their Advocate, Shri U.N. Bhandari and sought exemption for their personal appearance which was granted to them. In their reply, they have asserted that Mahendra Pal Singh did not meet them in April or May, 1987 nor they were aware of the where abouts of Meghna Singh. 5. 4 and 5 submitted reply to the habeas corpus petition through their Advocate, Shri U.N. Bhandari and sought exemption for their personal appearance which was granted to them. In their reply, they have asserted that Mahendra Pal Singh did not meet them in April or May, 1987 nor they were aware of the where abouts of Meghna Singh. 5. Shri Nupendra Singh requested that he wanted to contact his friend, Mahendra Pal Singh who had handed over the custody of the child to him, and therefore, he sought time to consult Mahendra Pal Singh and the case was adjourned to 15-7-1987 till 4 p.m. Meanwhile, custody of the child Meghna Singh was handed over to the petitioner and she was further directed to attend the court on 15-7-1987 at 4 p.m. along with Meghna Singh. She was directed not to leave India. Meanwhile, she was directed to give an under taking and to handover her passport and also that of Meghna Singh to this Court. She gave an undertaking and also handed over the passports to this Court. 6. On 15-7-1987, Nupendra Singh informed that he has not been able to contact his friend or his Advocate in United Kingdom, and therefore, further time was granted to him upto 17-7-1987, with a clear understanding that no further time will be granted after 17-7 1987 and final orders will be passed in the petition. Till then, Meghna Singh may continue in the custody of the petitioner. 7. On 17-7-1987, when the case was called, Nupendra Singh informed the court through his counsel Mr. Dangi that he had received a telephonic message that Mahendra Pal Singh has left for India. He further informed the court that he had talked to Mahendra Pal Singh at about 6 a.m. from Delhi and he is expected to reach Jaipur at any time. 8. This petition was taken up at 2.00 p.m. and again at 4.15 p.m, and tili then, Mahendra Pal Singh had not reached the court. 9. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, custody of Meghna Singh was handed over to her mother Mrs. Saravajeet Kaur Mehmi, petitioner, and she was directed to produce the girl Meghna Singh before the High Court of Justice (Family Division), U.K. within one month. 9. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, custody of Meghna Singh was handed over to her mother Mrs. Saravajeet Kaur Mehmi, petitioner, and she was directed to produce the girl Meghna Singh before the High Court of Justice (Family Division), U.K. within one month. Since the court time was only upto 4.30 p m. and it was not possible for us to give detailed reasons and the matter was pending since 10th July, 1987, final orders were passed in court giving custody of the child to her mother. The reasons are being given here under. 10. At the outset, we shall like to put on record our appreciation of action of Shri Nupendra Singh and specially his Advocate, Shri Virendra Dangi who advised him to produce the child in High Court at the earliest in response to news appearing in the newspapers which helped in quick disposal of the whole matter. 11. Smt. Saravajeet Kaur Mehmi, petitioner (Hindu) is an Indian citizen and has not Indian passport. She was married to Mahendra Pal Singh (Hindu, citizen of India) and gave birth to a girl named Meghna Singh, on 3-6-1983, who by her birth is a British National. The petitioner in her petition has filed a photostat copy of an affidavit of Mahendra Pal Singh, dated 29th May, 1987, which shows that there was some dispute between the husband and wife regarding the custody of the child Meghna Singh. In this affidavit, he has admitted that on 17-4-1987, he left with the Ward and flew to India. In that affidavit also, there is a mention about the order of his Lordship Mr. Justice Waite of the High Court of Justice (Family Division). It was further submitted in this affidavit that he had written a letter on 9th May, 1987 to his mother that she should hand over the Ward to the petitioner. 12. In view of all these facts before us, it was not necessary for us to have waited for the arrival of Shri Mahendra Pal Singh or to hear him as he was neither a party to this petition nor there was any application on his behalf to become a party to this petition. We had given sufficient time to Nupendra Singh to seek instructions from Shri Mahendra Pal Singh, as desired by him. 13. We had given sufficient time to Nupendra Singh to seek instructions from Shri Mahendra Pal Singh, as desired by him. 13. It may also be stated here that in view of the consent order dated May 5, 1987 passed by the High Court of Justice (Family Division), U.K. and affidavit of Shri Mahendra Pal Singh, dated 29th May, 1987, there remains nothing to be enquired or asked from Shri Mahendra Pal Singh. He possibly cannot take any other position in view of his admission and consent order dated May 5, 1987. 14. One of us was a party in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 317/1984 Ram Singh v. Isabell Singh decided on 12-11-1984 wherein in similar circumstances, this Court had handed over the custody of the two children to their mother, Mrs. Isabell Singh, relying on Smt. Surindra Kaur Sandhu v. Harbux Singh AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1224). Facts of this case are quite similar to that in the present case. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in that case have observed as under; "We may add that the spouses had set up their matrimonial home in England where the wife was working as a clerk an the husband as a bus driver. The boy is a British citizen, having been born in England, and he holds a British Passport. It cannot be controverted that, in these circumstances, the English Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of his custody. The modern theory of conflict of Laws recognises and, in any event, prefers the jurisdiction of the State which has the most intimate contact with the issue arising in the case. Jurisdiction is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances such as the circumstance as to where the child whose custody is in issue, is brought or for the time being lodged. To allow the assumption of jurisdiction by another State in such circumstances will only result in encouraging forum shopping. Ordinarily, jurisdiction must follow upon functional lines. That is to say, for example, that in matters relating to matrimony and custody, the law of that place must govern which has the closest concern with the well being of the spouses and the welfare of the off-springs of marriage. The spouses in this case had made England their home where this boy was born to them. That is to say, for example, that in matters relating to matrimony and custody, the law of that place must govern which has the closest concern with the well being of the spouses and the welfare of the off-springs of marriage. The spouses in this case had made England their home where this boy was born to them. The father cannot deprive the English Court of its jurisdiction to decide upon his custody by removing him to India, not in the normal movement of the matrimonial home but, by an act which was gravely detrimental to the peace of that home. The fact that the matrimonial home of the spouses was in England, establishes sufficient contacts or ties with that State in order to make it reasonable and just for the Courts of that State to assume jurisdiction to enforce obligations which were incurred therein by the spouses. (See: International Sheo Company v. State of Washington, (1945) 90 L Ed. 95, which was not a matrimonial case but which is regarded as the fountain head of the subsequent developments of jurisdictional issues like the one involved in the instant case). It is our duty and function to protect the wife against the burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum which she and her husband had left voluntarily in order to make their living in England, where they gave birth to this unfortunate body. 15. It is our duty and function to protect the wife against the burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum which she and her husband had left voluntarily in order to make their living in England, where they gave birth to this unfortunate body. 15. In the present case also, a consent order dated 5th May, 1987 was passed by the High Court of Justice (Family Division), United Kingdom in the following terms:It is ordered by Consent that: (1) The minor Meghna Preetima Singh do continue to remain a ward of this honourable court during her minority or until further order; (2) the said minor do remain in the care and control of the plaintiff until further order; (3) the Defendant, Mahendra Pal Singh by himself his agents or servants or otherwise be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted until further order restraining him from removing the said minor from there and control of the plaintiff once the said minor is returned to her as here in after mentioned, without the Authority of this Court; (4) the plaintiff do go to India as soon as possible and do bring the said minor back into the jurisdiction of this Court at the earliest possible date, the minor being now understood to reside with her paternal grandmother Mrs. Jeeto Kaur at Bharomajara Punjab, in the Republic of India; (5) following the said minor's return to the jurisdiction of this Court as aforesaid, the plaintiff is directed forthwith to inform the defendant of the address at which she is keeping the said minor. And the High Court of the State of the Punjab or any other court having authority in India, in which the aforesaid minor is residing, is hereby respectfully requested to make such orders and give such directions as may be necessary to enable this order to be carried out. 16. In pursuance of that order, the plaintiff, Smt. Saravjeet Kaur Mehmi, petitioner came to India to take back the minor child to United Kingdom. There was a request in the consent order dated 5-5-1987 passed by the High Court of Justice (Family Division), UK, to the Courts in India to pass necessary orders and issue directions to enable that order to be carried out. 17. There was a request in the consent order dated 5-5-1987 passed by the High Court of Justice (Family Division), UK, to the Courts in India to pass necessary orders and issue directions to enable that order to be carried out. 17. Therefore, we thought it proper to hand over the minor child Meghna Preetima Singh to her mother, Smt. Saravjeet Kaur Mehmi, petitioner directing her to produce the child in the court of High Court of Justice (Family Division), United Kingdom, within one month.Order accordingly. *******