order Heard the parties finally. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for protection of minor female child-Mitali born out of wedlock of petitioner-Amit and Sheena-respondent No. 3, and for directing Sheena to produce Mitali before the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland in view of order dated 17.6.2010 passed by that Court under the Care of Children Act, 2004. 3. Mr. H. K. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for Amit submitted as follows. In view of the said order of New Zealand High Court, Sheena be directed to produce Mitali before that Court. Mitali is a New Zealand citizen by birth who has been illegally detained by Sheena at Ranchi. Mitali being a citizen of New Zealand will have several privileges and benefits of education/ medical facility, etc. in that country. Amit is financially superior than Sheena and Mitali is the nominee of Amit, in several monetary benefits. For the welfare of Mitali, her custody should be handed over to Amit. Sheena has filed a case for maintenance which shows that she is not in a position to maintain the child properly. All these matters are to be examined by the High Court of New Zealand and therefore in terms of the judgment of Shilpa Aggrwal (Ms) v. Aviral Mittal and another (2010) 1 SCC 591 , orders may be passed in this case. Amit is also ready to bear all the expenses such as air fare of Sheena with Mitali, their lodging, boarding, fooding, litigation expenses, local traveling, etc. at New Zealand. Sheena has also filed case under Section 498A/ 34 I.P.C. only with a view to harass, humiliate and blackmail Amit. She has been trying to remarry even without a decree of divorce and if she remarries, it is not known how Mitali will be brought up by her step father. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sheena, submitted as follows. The paramount consideration for this court should be welfare and happiness of Mitali. Amit filed an application for parenting order under Section 47 and 48 of Care of Children Act 2004, before the Family Court at Manukau, New Zealand. Sheena sent her written statement, by courier on 19.9.2009. Then Amit moved the Supreme Court of India, in March 2009, for similar reliefs. Amit filed an application for parenting order under Section 47 and 48 of Care of Children Act 2004, before the Family Court at Manukau, New Zealand. Sheena sent her written statement, by courier on 19.9.2009. Then Amit moved the Supreme Court of India, in March 2009, for similar reliefs. The said Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 35 of 2010, was is missed as withdrawn on 24.3.2010 with liberty to move the High Court. On 29.4.2010, an ex-parte order of judicial separation was passed. Amit filed an interlocutory application, before New Zealand High Court on 25.5.2010, on which an interim order was passed on 17.6.2010 mainly on the ground that the Court had jurisdiction to pass such order. Then Amit filed this writ petition of Habeas Corpus. He suppressed before the Family Court and the New Zealand High Court about the pendency of the Matrimonial Suit, in India filed by Sheena for judicial separation. Mitali was taken by Sheena to India with the consent of Amit when she was about 2 years old. Thereafter she remained in India for about 3 years and is doing well in her school. Before the extended/ converted VISA lapsed on 24.10.2010, Mitali got Person of India Origin-P.I.O. Certificate, according to which she can live in India till 2025. If Mitali is detached from her mother at this tender age, she will suffer psychological trauma, and personality disorders. After Sheena and Mitali came to India, Amit has not visited India for 3 years, which shows that he is not serious in either resolving the disputes or in welfare of the Mitali. The apprehension of remarrying Sheena, and Mitali getting step father, applies to Amit also. Regarding the cases filed by Sheena, he submitted that Sheena is present in Court, and she undertakes to withdraw the Maintenance Case No. 157 of 2009 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi and the other case filed against Amit and his family members on 12.2.2010 being G.R. Case No. 660 of 2010 arising out of Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No. 3 of 2010 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 498A and 34 I.P.C. Mr. Prasad relied on the judgments of Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 112 and Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma (2000) 3 SCC 14 . Prasad relied on the judgments of Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 112 and Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma (2000) 3 SCC 14 . Relying on the judgment of Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanti Devi, reported in 1997 PLJR 184, he submitted that the judgment of Dhanwanti Joshi (Supra) should be preferred and relied over the Judgments of Shilpa Aggarwal (Supra) and V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 174 . He also questioned the competency of the deponent in this writ petition. 5. Before coming to the facts of the present case, it will be useful to examine the judgments relied by the parties. In the case of Dhanwanti Joshi (Supra), the child was taken to India against the orders of American Court in which Dhanwanti was given only visiting right. In paragraph-18(2), the following question was posed :- "18(2) Do the facts relating to the appellant bringing away the child to India in 1984 contrary to an order of the US Court or not producing the child in the Bombay High Court have any bearing on the decision of the courts in India while deciding about the paramount welfare of the child in 1993 or 1997?" It was inter alia observed in Paragraph-21 that- "21. ..................orders relating to custody of children are by their very nature not final, but are interlocutory in nature and subject to modification at any future time upon proof of change of circumstances requiring change of custody but such change in custody must be proved to be in the paramount interests of the child ............." It was also, inter alia, observed that the superior financial capacity of the husband cannot be sole ground for disturbing the children from his mother's custody. The said question posed in Paragraph 18(2) was discussed from Paragraph-26 onwards. In Paragraph-28 it was observed as follows:- "28. .......................... On appeal to the Privy Council, Lord Simonds held that in proceedings relating to custody before the Canadian Court, the welfare and happiness of the infant was of paramount consideration and the order of a foreign court in USA as to his custody can be given due weight in the circumstances of the case, but such an order of a foreign court was only one of the facts which must be taken into consideration. It was further held that it was the duty of the Canadian Court to form an independent judgment on the merits of the matter in regard to the welfare of the child. The order of the foreign court in US would yield to the welfare of the child. “Comity of courts demanded not its enforcement, but its grave consideration”. This case arising from Canada which lays down the law for Canada and U.K. has been consistently followed in latter cases. This view was reiterated by the House of Lords in J v. C. This is the law also in USA (see 24 American Jurisprudence, para 1001) and Australia. (See Khamis v. Khamis.)" It was further observed in Paragraph-29 as follows:- "29. .................... In the case of (a) a summary inquiry, the court would return custody to the country from which the child was removed unless such return could be shown to be harmful to the child. In the case of (b) an elaborate inquiry, the court could go into the merits as to where the permanent welfare lay and ignore the order of the foreign court or treat the fact of removal of the child from another country as only one of the circumstances. The crucial question as to whether the Court (in the country to which the child is removed) would exercise the summary or elaborate procedure is to be determined according to the child’s welfare. ............................. It has been firmly held that the concept of forum conveniens has no place in wardship jurisdiction" In Paragraph-33 it was observed as follows:- "33. So far as non-Convention countries are concerned, or where the removal related to a period before adopting the Convention, the law is that the court in the country to which the child is removed will consider the question on merits bearing the welfare of the child as of paramount importance and consider the order of the foreign court as only a factor to be taken into consideration as stated in McKee v. McKee unless the Court thinks it fit to exercise summary jurisdiction in the interests of the child and its prompt return is for its welfare, as explained in L., Re. As recently as 1996-1997, it has been held in P (A minor) (Child Abduction: Non-Convention Country), Re: by Ward, L.J. [1996 Current Law Year Book, pp. As recently as 1996-1997, it has been held in P (A minor) (Child Abduction: Non-Convention Country), Re: by Ward, L.J. [1996 Current Law Year Book, pp. 165-166] that in deciding whether to order the return of a child who has been abducted from his or her country of habitual residence — which was not a party to the Hague Convention, 1980, — the courts’ overriding consideration must be the child’s welfare. There is no need for the Judge to attempt to apply the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention by ordering the child’s return unless a grave risk of harm was established. See also A (A minor) (Abduction: Non-Convention Country) [Re, The Times 3-7-97 by Ward, L.J. (CA) (quoted in Current Law, August 1997, p. 13]. This answers the contention relating to removal of the child from USA." In the case of Sarita Shamra (Supra), Sarita had picked up the children from husband's residence in exercise of her visitation rights and then she came with them to India against the orders of the U.S.A. Court. It was inter alia observed as follows:- "6. Therefore, it will not be proper to be guided entirely by the fact that the appellant Sarita had removed the children from U.S.A. despite the order of the Court of that country. So also, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the American Court though a relevant factor, cannot override the consideration of welfare of the minor children. ................ Though it is true that both the children have American citizenship and there is a possibility that in U.S.A they may be able to get better education, it is doubtful if the respondent will be in a position to take proper care of the children when they are so young. Out of them, one is a female child. She is aged about 5 years. Ordinarily, a female child should be allowed to remain with the mother so that she can be properly looked after. ......................." 6. In the case of Shilpa Aggarwal (Supra), heavily relied by Mr. Mehta, order was passed directing Shilpa Aggarwal to take her 3 & 1/2 years old girl child to England in terms of orders passed by U.K. Court. The judgment of Dhanwanti Joshi and Sarita Sharma were simply referred in the judgment of Shilpa Aggarwal (Supra). ......................." 6. In the case of Shilpa Aggarwal (Supra), heavily relied by Mr. Mehta, order was passed directing Shilpa Aggarwal to take her 3 & 1/2 years old girl child to England in terms of orders passed by U.K. Court. The judgment of Dhanwanti Joshi and Sarita Sharma were simply referred in the judgment of Shilpa Aggarwal (Supra). It was inter alia observed that except for insisting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the English Court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to her custody; and that the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the English Courts, having regard to the nationality of the child; and that the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in U.K. and they also acquired permanent status of citizen in U.K. 7. Even in the subsequent case of V. Ravi Chandran (supra) in Paragraph-29 it was observed as follows:- "29. While dealing with a case of custody of a child removed by a parent from one country to another in contravention of the orders of the court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, the court in the country to which the child has been removed must first consider the question whether the court could conduct an elaborate enquiry on the question of custody or by dealing with the matter summarily order a parent to return custody of the child to the country from which the child was removed and all aspects relating to the child’s welfare be investigated in a court in his own country. Should the court take a view that an elaborate enquiry is necessary, obviously the court is bound to consider the welfare and happiness of the child as the paramount consideration and go into all relevant aspects of welfare of the child including stability and security, loving and understanding care and guidance and full development of the child’s character, personality and talents. While doing so, the order of a foreign court as to his custody may be given due weight; the weight and persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the circumstances of each case." However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, the wife was directed to take the child to America. While doing so, the order of a foreign court as to his custody may be given due weight; the weight and persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the circumstances of each case." However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, the wife was directed to take the child to America. It was noticed that keeping in view the welfare and happiness of the child-Adithya and in his best interests, the parties had obtained a series of consent orders concerning his custody/ parenting rights, maintenance etc. from the competent courts in America; and against such orders the wife had taken Adithya to India and they could be traced only with the help of CBI. It was also noticed that Adithya was citizen of U.S.A. and having born and brought up and having spent his initial years there, his natural habitat was U.S.A.. 8. Now the facts of the present case. Amit was working at New Zealand. He got married with Sheena on 20.1.2005 at Ranchi. They went to New Zealand. On 12.12.2006, Mitali born there. On 14.12.2006, Amit got citizenship of New Zealand. On 19.11.2008, Sheena came with Mitali to India with return tickets with consent of Amit. In February, 2009 Sheena filed the said Matrimonial Suit for judicial separation before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Notice of the said suit was served on Amit at New Zealand. Thereafter he filed a petition for parenting order under Sections 47 and 48 before the Family Court at Manukau on 19.9.2009. Sheena sent her written statement by courier. Amit filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 35 of 2010 in March, 2010, for similar reliefs. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.3.2010 with liberty to move the High Court for appropriate relief. An ex parte order of judicial separation was passed in the said Matrimonial Suit on 29.4.2010. On 25.5.2010, Amit filed an interlocutory application before the High Court of New Zealand (i) for placing Mitali under the guardianship of High Court; (ii) directing Sheena to return Mitali to New Zealand within 14 days of service on her of Court order; (iii) on return Mitali's Passport to be lodged with the Registry of the High Court at Aukland and (iv) she may be directed to reside at Auckland area until further orders. The High Court of New Zealand allowed the said prayers till further orders. 9. Amit suppressed before the Family Court and in his interlocutory application filed on 19.8.2009 before the New Zealand High Court that a Matrimonial Suit filed by Sheena for judicial separation was pending in India. Even after filing the said interlocutory application, he moved the Supreme Court of India for similar reliefs. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for appropriate reliefs, but he chose to move before the High Court of New Zealand on which the said order was passed on 17.6.2010, on the basis of which it is contended by Amit that Sheena be directed to produce Mitali before that Court for deciding her parenting/ guardianship. It is true that Mitali being a citizen of New Zealand, will have several privileges there. It also appears that the financial capacity of Amit is superior than that of Sheena, but Sheena has claimed that she has joined her father's confectionery shop. It also appears from the progress report of the School, that Mitali is doing well at present with Sheena. Mitali was with Amit and Sheena for less than 2 years at New Zealand then she is with Sheena at India for about 3 years. Naturally, she must have developed more attachment with Sheena by now. In our opinion and with great respect, only on the basis of the order dated 17.6.2010 passed by the High Court of New Zealand, it will not be proper to direct Sheena to take Mitali to New Zealand. At this tender age, she is likely to suffer psychological trauma of litigation, detachment, etc. which may cause personality disorders in Mitali. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noticed above and keeping in view the judgments relied by parties, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs, as prayed in this writ petition. 11. Before parting with this case, we may notice the order . dated 28.3.2011 in which this Court expressed surprise on the filing of the maintenance case by Sheena on the one hand and claiming that she is capable of maintaining Mitali nicely, on the other hand. 11. Before parting with this case, we may notice the order . dated 28.3.2011 in which this Court expressed surprise on the filing of the maintenance case by Sheena on the one hand and claiming that she is capable of maintaining Mitali nicely, on the other hand. However, as already noticed, Sheena has given undertaking to withdraw the Maintenance Case No. 157 of 2009 as well as the G.R. Case No. 660 of 2010 arising out of Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No. 3 of 2010 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 498A and 34 I.P.C. She is directed to do so within two weeks from today failing which the matter will be viewed seriously. The concerned courts will allow her to withdraw the said cases. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.