JUDGMENT : S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is by a German national who states that his wife Respondent No.2, an Indian national, on 10th April 2018, brought away their minor daughter (hereafter ‘the child’) to India from Dubai where they were residing without his knowledge and on an emergency travel document issued in favour of the child by the Consulate General of India (‘CGI’) in Dubai. He prays for a direction to the Respondents to produce the child before the Court and hand her custody over to him. It is further prayed that Respondent No.2 and the child be allowed to return to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’). 2. In this judgment, the names of the parties and some of their personal details have been withheld/anonymised, in order to respect their privacy. Access to the records of this case will be available only to the parties. 3. It is pertinent to note at the outset that although orders in this matter were initially reserved on 22nd May 2018 having heard both parties on merits, this Court by the order dated 1st June 2018 deemed it necessary for both parties to address it further on “working arrangements that can be put in place, within the framework of law, in the event the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or with the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child”. Thus, both parties were directed to file their written notes of submissions in that regard and share advance copies of the same with each other. The matter was then listed on 6th July 2018, on which date the Court was made aware of several developments that had taken shape in the intervening period. Background 4. The Petitioner, a German Christian and Respondent No.2, an Indian Hindu, underwent a Hindu religious ceremony of marriage at New Delhi on 29th December 2011. On 24th January 2012, their marriage was formally solemnized under the Special Marriage Act 1954 at Bangalore. The parents of Respondent No.2 reside in New Delhi. However, neither the Petitioner nor Respondent No.2 lived together in New Delhi at any point in time. They met in Bangalore and resided together at Bangalore and Hyderabad. 5. On 14th March 2013, the child was born to the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 at Bangalore. The parents of Respondent No.2 reside in New Delhi. However, neither the Petitioner nor Respondent No.2 lived together in New Delhi at any point in time. They met in Bangalore and resided together at Bangalore and Hyderabad. 5. On 14th March 2013, the child was born to the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 at Bangalore. She has a German passport issued to her by the German Consulate in Bangalore on 6th May 2013. It is valid till 5th May 2019. The child had an Indian passport which was issued on 1st August 2013 and expired on 31st July 2018. The further developments in this regard will be referred to hereafter. 6. In February 2017, the Petitioner found a job in Dubai. Respondent No.2 and the child joined him there in April 2017. When this matter was first heard by the Court, the Petitioner was stated to be working as a General Manager in a company based in Abu Dhabi, UAE. His residence permit was stated to be valid up to 7th March 2020. The Petitioner further stated that his parents, who live in Germany, are to retire shortly and being very emotionally attached to the child, proposed to be with her throughout. 7. The child had been attending the German International School in Dubai from September 2017 onwards in kindergarten. The Petitioner is stated to have paid the registration fees, tuition fees, etc. for the academic year ending September 2018. She had been issued an entry permit on 8th April 2018 by the General Directorate of Residence and Foreigners Affairs, Ministry of Interior, UAE on her valid German passport, thus permitting her stay in Dubai. 8. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 admit that there were differences and disputes between them while they lived in Dubai. Sometime in June 2017, Respondent No.2 brought the child to India for a brief period without informing the Petitioner. According to her, this was on account of the Petitioner’s changed behaviour towards her which made it impossible for her to continue living in the matrimonial home. She, however, returned to Dubai with the child in July 2017 and resumed living with the Petitioner there. 9. On 27th October 2017, Respondent No.2 left the house to stay separately in Dubai. According to her, this was on account of the Petitioner’s changed behaviour towards her which made it impossible for her to continue living in the matrimonial home. She, however, returned to Dubai with the child in July 2017 and resumed living with the Petitioner there. 9. On 27th October 2017, Respondent No.2 left the house to stay separately in Dubai. In the affidavit filed by her in this Court on 24th May 2018, Respondent No.2 stated that she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home on 27th October 2017 without her daughter as life was becoming unbearable for her on account of the Petitioner’s conduct towards her. The Petitioner, on the other hand, states that he was shocked to learn of the conduct of Respondent No.2 which destroyed their mutual trust and when he confronted her with the facts he had gathered, she left the matrimonial home of her own accord. The Court does not propose to dwell on these aspects in this order since they involve disputed questions of fact that may warrant the leading of evidence by the parties. What is relevant to note, however, is that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have acknowledged at this stage that they have irreconcilable differences and that their staying together in the same place as a family is not realistic. 10. To resume the chronological narration of the background events, within a month of their living separately in Dubai, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 entered into a written agreement on 25th November 2017 titled ‘Interim Agreement – Rules of Engagement 25.11.2017’. The said interim agreement began by acknowledging that it was necessitated in order “to keep things clear, free of confusion and misunderstanding and allow time to be taken” between them as a married couple to understand the extent of their marital problems and feelings towards each other. There are 12 clauses in the said agreement, the gist of which is that Respondent No.2 had taken an apartment for herself since 1st November 2017 and was staying separately from the Petitioner and their child “to provide time, distance and space for the Petitioner to process what he came to know of recently”. There are 12 clauses in the said agreement, the gist of which is that Respondent No.2 had taken an apartment for herself since 1st November 2017 and was staying separately from the Petitioner and their child “to provide time, distance and space for the Petitioner to process what he came to know of recently”. The Respondent No.2 had the promise and guarantee from the Petitioner to get unlimited access to the child “within boundaries of her safekeeping and needs of upbringing, e.g. ability to reach school bus in the morning, collection from her school bus in the afternoon, being supervised post school prior a parent’s return from work, etc.”. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were to have alternate evenings with the child in their original home where the Petitioner and the child continued to reside during the weekdays with equal time for each to make sure that the child had both parents in her life. Respondent No.2 was permitted to take the child to her separate apartment for two weekends every month. She could collect the child on Thursday afternoon from the school bus or from her home after work until Sunday morning drop off for the school bus. For the other two weekends per month the child would stay exclusively with the Petitioner. Alternatively, it could be agreed upon to share a weekend with the other parent in the fairest possible way of splitting the child’s time. 11. As far as the present petition is concerned, Clause 7 of the interim agreement is important. This recorded a promise of Respondent No.2 not to leave UAE with the child again without the consent of the Petitioner. Clause 8 records the promise of the Petitioner not to take his daughter out of the country of residence (UAE) except for the already planned week of Christmas vacation in Germany in December 2017 which Respondent No.2 was informed about. Clause 9 recorded the consent of Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner holding the passport and Emirates ID and general day to day care aspects of custody of the child. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 confirmed that as on that day, no legal action had been initiated and “shall not be initiated, unless discussed with or informed to the other partner prior any such steps being taken”. 12. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 confirmed that as on that day, no legal action had been initiated and “shall not be initiated, unless discussed with or informed to the other partner prior any such steps being taken”. 12. Respondent No.2 now claims that she felt compelled to sign the above interim agreement on the dotted line as she was distraught without the child and was desperate to have even limited access to her. According to Respondent No.2, the agreement subsisted for only 5 months. She was all along trying to make the marriage work but it is the Petitioner who violated the agreement and verbally intimated the Respondent No.2 that he had filed for divorce in Dubai without giving any details. She states that she felt devastated and insecure in a “totally patriarchal” country and was left with no choice but to leave. All of these allegations have been refuted by the Petitioner. 13. The Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Dubai Personal Courts for initiation of a non-Muslim divorce which was accepted for pre-proceedings counselling on 25th March 2018. It was fixed for hearing before the Family Counsellor, Dubai on 11th April 2018. According to the Petitioner, intimation of the said proceedings was given telephonically to Respondent No.2 but she did not appear. 14. Interestingly, in a parallel move, Respondent No.2 appears to have travelled to India in March 2018 to file a suit for obtaining an anti-suit injunction so as to restrain the Petitioner from initiating proceedings before the courts in Dubai in relation to their matrimonial dispute. The specific prayer was to restrain the Petitioner from “filing/initiating any petition/suit/claim/case in the nature of divorce proceeding or any other matrimonial proceeding pertaining to marriage between the parties or the minor child of the parties before any other Court except courts of competent jurisdiction in India”. 15. The affidavit of Respondent No.2 in support of the plaint in Suit No.3/2018 in the Family Court, Saket is dated 26th March 2018. In the opening paragraph of the affidavit, Respondent No.2 has given her Dubai address and stated that she is currently residing in Alaknanda, New Delhi. The said suit appears to have been heard on several dates starting from 28th March 2018 onwards. It, therefore, appears that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 parties were anticipating the initiation of court proceedings against each other at around the same time. The said suit appears to have been heard on several dates starting from 28th March 2018 onwards. It, therefore, appears that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 parties were anticipating the initiation of court proceedings against each other at around the same time. 16. It must be mentioned at this stage that Respondent No.2 is a qualified lawyer, having completed her B.Com. and her LL.B. from Delhi. In drawing a comparison between herself and the Petitioner on parameters which she states are relevant for determining their respective eligibility to ensure the welfare of the child, Respondent No.2 states that she has worked in law firms and various organizations as a Human Resources Consultant. 17. The Court has consciously not referred to the averments in the petition which refer to the reasons why the Petitioner instituted the divorce proceedings against Respondent No.2 in the courts in Dubai. The Court also does not propose to discuss the allegations and counter allegations made by each of the parties against each other. It appears that they are likely to be involved in litigation concerning their marriage and nothing said here should prejudice their respective rights and contentions in those proceedings. Respondent No.2 brings the child to India 18. In her affidavit dated 24th May 2018, Respondent No.2 stated inter alia that in the face of continued threats of criminal action, Sharia divorce, and apprehending being forcibly deprived of the custody of the child, she was left with no choice but to return to India to her parents. She approached the CGI in Dubai so as to obtain an emergency travel document (‘ETD’) for the child to return to India. She obtained it on 1st April 2018 but could not travel immediately on account of Government procedures and formalities. She was given clearance to travel with the child only on 10th April 2018. She reached India with the child in the early hours of 11th April 2018. 19. A photocopy of the said ETD dated 1st April 2018 and expiring on 30th June 2018 was enclosed with the above affidavit. It reveals that the reason given for issuance of the ETD was “Passport Lost”. In the remarks column it is stated that there existed no objection to issuing a further passport subject to usual checks and Ministry instructions. 20. The Petitioner’s version of what transpired differs. It reveals that the reason given for issuance of the ETD was “Passport Lost”. In the remarks column it is stated that there existed no objection to issuing a further passport subject to usual checks and Ministry instructions. 20. The Petitioner’s version of what transpired differs. He states that Respondent No.2 knew that he had with him their daughter’s original Indian and German passports and yet misled the CGI into issuing an ETD for their daughter. He alleges that “the CGI, Dubai, colluded with Respondent No.2 in this planned abduction and chose not to contact, confirm or establish the true facts by reaching the petitioner in Dubai”. He has further averred that on 10th April 2018, Respondent No.2 “on the pretext of taking their daughter to a trampoline play area on a visitation, instead left for India and took a flight to leave UAE and flew to New Delhi without the knowledge and consent of the Petitioner”. The Petitioner alleges that “this was all pre-planned and pre-meditated by Respondent No.2 with advance planning and organising her movement to India surreptitiously”. 21. The Petitioner was not successful in getting the CGI to provide him with a copy of the ETD or even the reasons for its issuance. He received an email dated 17th April 2018 from Ms. Sumathi Vasudev of the CGI, Dubai stating inter alia: “2. As I mentioned in my earlier email an Emergency Certificate was issued to (name anonymised) on an application made by her mother (name withheld) We can share with you that in her application (the mother) had reported that the passport of (name anonymised) had been lost and had requested issuance of Emergency Certificate urgently because she wanted to visit her ailing mother in India on medical grounds. She reported that her husband is not in touch with her. 3. As per Government of India rules a single parent can apply for passport on Emergency Certificate if the other parent is not available, by giving an undertaking that he or she will be responsible and liable for any issue arising out of obtaining passport on Emergency Certification on such an undertaking.” 22. The Petitioner contends: “...the rights of petitioner as a father have been violated and the illegal removal of his daughter from Dubai has been abetted by the CGI, permitting the kidnapping of his daughter. The Petitioner contends: “...the rights of petitioner as a father have been violated and the illegal removal of his daughter from Dubai has been abetted by the CGI, permitting the kidnapping of his daughter. Petitioner is astonished that the CGI, Dubai made no efforts or attempts to ascertain from him directly as to why and where the existing passports of minor (name anonymised) were and proceeded to act on one sided statements made by the Respondent No. 2, who was in contact and regular communication with the petitioner. Therefore, the parental rights of petitioner have been violated and in utter contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child have been infringed since their daughter has a right to a family life in Dubai and to continue schooling in Dubai as was the agreement of parties.” 23. After coming to India on 10th April 2018, Respondent No.2 filed, on 21st April 2018, an application against the Petitioner claiming various reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005 (‘PWDV Act’) in the learned MM’s Court at Saket. A copy of this complaint has been enclosed with the affidavit dated 24th May 2018 filed by Respondent in this petition. According to Respondent No.2, the said application lists in detail the cruel acts which she was subjected to and which compelled her to leave Dubai with her daughter in an emergency and return to India. Proceedings before this Court till 22nd May 2018 24. This petition was first heard on 24th April 2018. On that date, Respondent No.2 was present in person. Her counsel accepted notice in the petition. Since both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were willing to explore the possibility of settling their differences and disputes through mediation, and Respondent No.2 was also willing to appear in the mediation centre with the child, the Court directed the parties along with the child to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (‘DHCMCC’). The Petitioner was permitted to meet the child for two hours in the DHCMCC on that day and on the following day. 25. The Court, on 24th April 2018, directed that till the next date of hearing, both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 would be restrained from taking any precipitate action. The Petitioner was permitted to meet the child for two hours in the DHCMCC on that day and on the following day. 25. The Court, on 24th April 2018, directed that till the next date of hearing, both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 would be restrained from taking any precipitate action. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 undertook that he would seek adjournment in the above proceedings under the PWDV Act instituted by her. 26. When the case was heard next on 26th April 2018, the Court was informed that no settlement could be reached in the mediation. The judges constituting this Bench first met the child in the Judge’s chambers. We found her to be articulate. In spite of being just 5 years old, she was very aware of what was happening. She was clear that she loved both her parents very much and wanted to stay with both of them. She did not like to have to choose between either. She further stated that she was very happy being in Dubai with her father and attending school there. She asked if her mother could also not come back with her to Dubai so that they could all be together. 27. We next met Respondent No.2 in the chambers. She was emotional and reacted strongly to the suggestion that she consider returning to Dubai for the welfare of the child. Respondent No.2 explained that she had no help in Dubai and it was not possible for her to continue to live there even in the vicinity of the Petitioner for a variety of reasons, which need not be discussed here. While she cared very much for her child, she pleaded that it would be unfair to deprive her of the custody of the child on the pretext of the child’s best interests. 28. We next met the Petitioner. He stated that he was deeply attached to the child. He explained the circumstances under which the relationship between him and Respondent No.2 broke down and they started living separately since October 2017. He stated that he was not interested in separating Respondent No.2 from the child. He was willing to consider modifications to the earlier arrangement which was in place prior to 10th April 2018. He explained the circumstances under which the relationship between him and Respondent No.2 broke down and they started living separately since October 2017. He stated that he was not interested in separating Respondent No.2 from the child. He was willing to consider modifications to the earlier arrangement which was in place prior to 10th April 2018. He assured that he was not interested in seeking the criminal prosecution of Respondent No.2 or invoking the Sharia law in the divorce proceedings instituted by him in Dubai. He explained that the child was very happy attending school in Dubai. He stated that his parents were proposing to move in with him in Dubai after their retirement. The Petitioner stated that in his current line of work, there were hardly any job prospects in India. He was doing well in his present job in the UAE. 29. The Court at that stage felt that the parties should still explore the possibility of settlement through mediation and referred them to a second round of mediation at the DHCMCC. This time, a child counsellor and family counsellor were asked to be associated in the mediation process. The Court issued interim directions facilitating the meeting of the Petitioner with his child for two hours every day in the presence of Respondent No.2 either at the DHCMCC or at a mutually agreed convenient place. 30. On 5th May 2018, the Court was again informed that the mediation had not succeeded. The report of the child counsellor, submitted to the Court in a sealed cover, stated that the child wished to return to Dubai to resume her schooling. The child counsellor noted that, at that point in time, the child was confused as to whether she wanted to be with her mother in India or with her father in Dubai. She further observed that the child was “facing a difficult phase due to estrangement of her parents” and that “in the given set of circumstances she has expressed her willingness to live with her father”. However, as noted by us, the child clearly did not want to be away from her mother. She expected that her mother would be with her even if she opted to return to school in Dubai. 31. The Court then proceeded to hear the petition on merits. However, as noted by us, the child clearly did not want to be away from her mother. She expected that her mother would be with her even if she opted to return to school in Dubai. 31. The Court then proceeded to hear the petition on merits. On 22nd May 2018, while reserving judgment for the first time, the Court issued directions permitting the Petitioner to interact with the child from Dubai on video link at a mutually agreed time on a daily basis for about an hour. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 informed the Court that she would place on record a copy of the emergency travel document issued by the Indian embassy in Dubai with the help of which the child was brought to India by Respondent No.2. This was done two days later on 24th May 2018 along with the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2. 32. On 22nd May 2018, Mr. Malhotra, on the instructions of Petitioner, stated that the Petitioner was willing to let Respondent No.2 have the custody of their daughter as long as she returned to Dubai with her. The Petitioner was also willing to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem necessary to impose. The Petitioner was also prepared to give an assurance to the effect that he would not proceed against Respondent No.2 in Dubai under the Sharia law which according to him, in any event, was not applicable to the parties even as per the procedure evolved under the prevalent legal system in Dubai. 33. However, Respondent No.2 instructed learned counsel Ms. Kamini Jaiswal who was appearing on her behalf to inform the Court that she was not willing to consider the above offer and insisted that the Petitioner would have to come to India if he wants to visit the child and further that under no circumstances would Respondent No.2 return to Dubai with the child. Proceedings after 1st June 2018 34. While preparing its order, the Court noticed the ETD issued in the child’s name submitted by Respondent No.2 which gave rise to the question as to whether the Court’s orders regarding working arrangements for visitation of either spouse can be given effect to within the framework of the law. The case was, therefore, again listed for hearing on 1st June 2018 on which date the following order was passed:- “1. The case was, therefore, again listed for hearing on 1st June 2018 on which date the following order was passed:- “1. Although the orders were reserved, while further deliberating on the matter the Court felt that both the parties should address it further on the working arrangements that can be put in place, within the framework of law, in the event of the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or with the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child. 2. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 will file their respective notes of submissions on the above aspect after exchanging advance copies at least two weeks prior to the next date. 3. Mr. Malhotra informs that the Petitioner is present today. The Petitioner is permitted to meet the child today for two hours at a mutually convenient place and time in the presence of Respondent No.2. On his future visits to India, the counsel for the Respondent No.2 will be notified by the Petitioner in advance so that a similar visitation can be arranged on every date of his visit. The earlier directions regarding meeting the child through video link will continue. 4. List on 6th July 2018 at 2:15 pm.” 35. On 6th July 2018, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 informed the Court that her daughter’s Indian passport which was due to expire on 31st July 2018 had been renewed for another five years. He sought time to produce the renewed passport and the case was then listed for 9th July 2018. The 9th July 2018 order 36. On 9th July 2018, copies of the renewed Indian passport issued to the child were produced before the Court. An additional affidavit of that date was tendered on behalf of Respondent No.2 offering an explanation regarding the issuance of the said passport. The Court then passed the following detailed order on 9th July 2018:- “1. The Petitioner is a German national, who approached this Court with the present petition stating that his wife, Respondent No.2, has brought away their child, a minor daughter namely (name anonymised) born to them in Bangalore on 14th March, 2013 to India from Dubai where they were residing without his knowledge and on an emergency travel document. The Court has since then been engaged with the question of the custody of the minor child. The Court has since then been engaged with the question of the custody of the minor child. In the mediation proceedings, attempted during the pendency of the present petition, the parties have not been able to arrive at any acceptable terms of settlement. The child is at present with her mother and both of them are living in Delhi with the parents of Respondent No.2. 2. An issue that has cropped up during the hearing of the petition concerns the passports issued to the minor child. Relevant to this issue are certain facts which are not in dispute. These are that the Petitioner is a German national and Respondent No.2 is an Indian citizen. Their marriage was solemnized in India under, the Special Marriage Act on 24th January, 2012 at Bangalore. The child, (name anonymised), was born in Bangalore to the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 on 14th March, 2013. A German Passport bearing No. (withheld by this Court) was issued by the German Consulate in Bangalore to (name anonymised) on 6th May, 2013 and the said passport is valid up to 5th May, 2019. Thereafter, on 1st August, 2013 an Indian Passport bearing No. (withheld by this Court) was issued to (name anonymised) at Bangalore. This is valid up to 31st July, 2018. 3. The Petitioner has in his possession the original of both the above passports. The original passports have been shown to the Court by the Petitioner. He had made an averment to this effect in paras 13 to 15 of his writ petition filed on 23rd April, 2018. There was no specific denial of this fact in the counter affidavit of Respondent No.2. 4. In explaining the circumstances under which she returned to India with her daughter on 10th April 2018 on an emergency travel document issued in favour of (name anonymised), Respondent No.2 stated in para 19 of her counter affidavit, filed oh 11th May, 2018 as under:- "In the above circumstances, the respondent no.2 had no option but to return to India with her daughter. The emergency travel document was secured from the Indian consulate at Dubai since the petitioner had told the respondent that he had lost/misplaced (the child)'s Indian passport. Though the respondent did not realise the actual intent of the petitioner, at that time. However, this is not the first time that the respondent had to return to India in this manner. The emergency travel document was secured from the Indian consulate at Dubai since the petitioner had told the respondent that he had lost/misplaced (the child)'s Indian passport. Though the respondent did not realise the actual intent of the petitioner, at that time. However, this is not the first time that the respondent had to return to India in this manner. Even in June 2017 the respondent, along with (the child), had returned to India (on her Indian passport) owing to their differences but went back to Dubai in July 2017 on the insistence & assurance of the petitioner to mend his ways." 5. Further, in an affidavit was filed on 24th May, 2018 Respondent No.2 stated in paras 7 and 8 as under:- "7. That on 1/4/2018, the Respondent approached the Indian Embassy in Dubai and asked for an Emergency Travel Document to return to India. I narrated my aforesaid ordeal to the officials of the Indian Embassy who were inclined to help me. I stated to the officials of the Indian Embassy that I feared for my life and liberty in Dubai and that it was absolutely imperative for me and my daughter to return to India. Thereafter, I was issued the Emergency Travel Document with respect to my daughter on 1/4/2018. I was constrained to take the extreme step as aforesaid as I feared not only for myself but the threat of not seeing my daughter ever again. 8. That I could not return to India immediately after obtaining the Emergency Travel Document as several governmental procedural formalities had to be completed which would ensure clearance of my daughter and mine through the immigration at the Dubai Airport. The said Dubai Government formalities took about 10 days to complete and I was given a clearance to travel along with my daughter only on 10/4/2018. I, along with my daughter, reached India at early hours on 11/4/2018. True copy of the Emergency Travel Document issued to my daughter is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE A-2." 6. The photocopy of the emergency travel document enclosed with the above affidavit showed that in the column titled 'reason' it is stated 'passport lost'. This emergency travel document was valid upto 30th June, 2018. 7. True copy of the Emergency Travel Document issued to my daughter is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE A-2." 6. The photocopy of the emergency travel document enclosed with the above affidavit showed that in the column titled 'reason' it is stated 'passport lost'. This emergency travel document was valid upto 30th June, 2018. 7. The Petitioner has, in para 14 of the petition, reproduced the complete text of an e-mail dated 17th April, 2018 received by him from one Smt. Sumati Vasudev, Consul (Cons. & Labour), Consulate General of India, Dubai in response to his RTI application. It reads as under:- "Dear Mr. M (anonymised), Kindly refer to your email below. I have already sent you a reply on April 2018 giving our response to the various issues raised by you. We had also asked your wife to reply to the comments pertaining to her which have been answered by her with a copy to you. 2. As I mentioned in my earlier email an Emergency Certificate was issued to (name anonymised) on an application made by her mother. We can share with you that in her application (the mother) had reported that the passport of (the child) had been lost and had requested issuance of Emergency Certificate urgently because she wanted to visit her ailing mother in India on medical grounds. She reported that her husband is not in touch with her. 3. As per the Government of India rules a single parent can apply for passport on Emergency Certificate if the other parent is not available, by giving an undertaking that he or she will be responsible and liable for any issue arising out of obtaining passport on Emergency Certification on such an undertaking. 4. As is clear we reject all your allegations and insinuations. We issued the Emergency Certificate to (the child) as per our rules, as we would issue to any other Indian national." 8. On 1st June, 2018 this Court had asked the parties to present to it a working arrangement within the framework of the law in the event the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child. On 1st June, 2018 this Court had asked the parties to present to it a working arrangement within the framework of the law in the event the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child. At the subsequent hearing of this petition on 6th July 2018 the Court was informed by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the Indian Passport issued to (the child) has been renewed for another five years. He stated that he would produce the said passport before this Court along with the copies of the documents relevant to the renewal. 9. Today, Mr. Mendiratta has produced in the Court an additional affidavit dated 9th July, 2018 of the Respondent No.2 explaining inter alia that since the Indian passport issued to (the child) was expiring. Respondent No.2 had applied for its renewal. Copies of the birth certificate of (name anonymised), the blank copy of the form used by Respondent No.2 for applying for renewal of (the child)'s Indian passport as well as the copy of the renewed Indian passport have been enclosed with the above affidavit as Annexures A-1 to A-3 respectively. On a perusal of the original of the renewed passport, the Court finds that it notes "old passport reported lost". The address given in the renewed passport is the address of the parents of the Respondent No.2 in Delhi. 10. The pleadings in the present case show that there was an agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 dated 25th November, 2017 (Annexure-P7) entered into between the parties in Dubai. Paragraph 9 thereof records that the Respondent No.2 agreed to handover the passport and ID of (name anonymised) (valid in the Emirates) to the Petitioner to ensure that (the child) remains there. The case of the Respondent No.2, however, is that the Petitioner had told her that he had "lost/misplaced (name anonymised)'s Indian passport." Be that as it may, after the filing of the present petition, with the Petitioner having positively stated that he had with him the original passports – both German and Indian - issued to (the child), Respondent No.2 could not have, while applying for the renewal of (name anonymised)'s Indian passport told the Indian Passport authority in Delhi that the earlier Indian passport issued to (the child) was lost. It is also not clear what was disclosed (or not) by Respondent No.2 in the application for such renewal of (the child)'s Indian passport. 11. The Court considers it appropriate to bring the above facts to the notice of the Regional Passport Office in Delhi which issued the renewed Indian passport to (name anonymised) on 27th June, 2018 with the expiry date of 26th June, 2023. The Court accordingly issues notice to the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi requiring him to depute any responsible officer to appear before the Court together with the files concerning the (i) Indian Passport No. (withheld by this Court) dated 1st August, 2013 issued to (the child) by the Regional Passport Office, Bangalore; (ii) Passport (withheld by this Court) dated 1st April, 2018 issued by the Indian Consulate in Dubai to (the child) and (iii) Passport No. (withheld by this Court) issued in favour of (the child) on 27th June, 2018 by the Passport Office in Delhi with an expiry dated of 26th June, 2023. 12. In particular, the applications filed on each instance for issuance of Indian passport for (the child) along with all the other documents submitted with those applications be produced before the Court on the next date. 13. The Court also requests Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India to assist the Court on the aspects of the issuance of the Indian and German passports to (the child) and the correct legal position in that regard. 14. The Petitioner has filed further written submissions today which are taken on record. 15. The Registry is directed to have the notice issued to the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, without process fees, by a Special Messenger forthwith together with a certified copy of this order. 16. The. Registry is also directed to serve forthwith upon Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned ASG, again without process fee, the certified copy of the present order, along with the complete set of paper book (which will be provided by the learned counsel for the Petitioner) and all other previous orders passed in the present petition by this Court. 17. List on 20th July, 2018, at 2.15 pm. The interim orders passed as regards the Petitioner meeting the child in Delhi and over video link shall continue.” Clarification by the Govt. of India 37. On 20th July 2018, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (‘ASG’), Ms. 17. List on 20th July, 2018, at 2.15 pm. The interim orders passed as regards the Petitioner meeting the child in Delhi and over video link shall continue.” Clarification by the Govt. of India 37. On 20th July 2018, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (‘ASG’), Ms. Maninder Acharya, appeared and sought to examine the legal issues that arose as a result of the above developments, in light of the Citizenship Act 1955 as well as the Passports Act 1967 and the rules thereunder. While continuing the interim orders, the case was adjourned to 30th July 2018 when submissions of the learned ASG on the above aspect were heard. On 9th August 2018, when the case was heard next, an affidavit was filed by Mr. Arun K. Chatterjee, Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer, CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India in which it was stated inter alia that the child “ceased to be a citizen of India following her acquisition of a German Passport”. It was further noted that this fact had not been disclosed to the Passport Office by Respondent No.2 while the application for the same was being made. Stating that had this information been available, the application would have been declined, the affidavit concludes by noting that the passport issued to the child in 2018 “cannot be deemed to be a valid passport now since it has been brought to the notice of the Government that the child holds a valid German Passport and is, therefore, a German national”. 38. After noting the contents of the affidavit, the Court passed an order on 9th August 2018 wherein the following observations were made:- “2. Upon a query by the Court as to the consequence of the Indian passport issued to (the child) not being a valid passport and in the particular context of her being a child aged five years, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, states that she will have to seek instructions on the question of issuance of an Indian visa to the child. 3. It may be noted at this stage that Mr. Mendiratta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that the determination recorded in the aforementioned affidavit cannot be treated as final since the procedure under the Passports Act, 1967 for arriving at such a determination is yet to be complied with. 4. 3. It may be noted at this stage that Mr. Mendiratta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that the determination recorded in the aforementioned affidavit cannot be treated as final since the procedure under the Passports Act, 1967 for arriving at such a determination is yet to be complied with. 4. The Court has also asked Ms. Acharya to clarify the question of issuance of visa to the Petitioner for visitation in the event this Court decides the issue of custody of (the child) in favour of Respondent No.2. She states that on this issue as well, she will seek instructions and revert on the next date of hearing. 5. On his part, Mr. Anil Malhotra has produced a legal opinion dated 11th July 2018 of the Counsellor and Consul, Head of Legal and Consular Section of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi where inter alia it is stated as under: "German Citizenship can, in certain circumstances, be lost through voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship (naturalization after voluntary application), in accordance with Article 25 of the German Citizenship Act. The issuance of a foreign passport to a minor child by a passport agency of a foreign country can never trigger the loss of German citizenship, if it has not been preceded by a full naturalization process, and even in this case only if all legal representatives of the minor have applied for such naturalization jointly, and if competent German authorities and Court have been heard. The Embassy has been informed that the mentioned minor child's mother has obtained a new Indian passport for the child. The Embassy cannot speculate if the mentioned minor child is indeed an Indian citizen. The Embassy can, however, confirm that (name anonymised), the mentioned child, has not lost her German citizenship through her mother's successful application for an Indian passport." 6. List on 21st August 2018 at 4 pm. 7. Interim orders to continue. The compilation of case law tendered by Mr. Malhotra is taken on record.” 39. At the hearing on 28th August 2018, a written clarification of the Joint Deputy Director and FRRO dated 24th August 2018 was placed before the Court by the learned ASG which read as follows:- “1. The petitioner’s minor child (name anonymised) (German Citizen) may be granted an X-2 (Entry) visa subject to production of her valid German passport. 2. At the hearing on 28th August 2018, a written clarification of the Joint Deputy Director and FRRO dated 24th August 2018 was placed before the Court by the learned ASG which read as follows:- “1. The petitioner’s minor child (name anonymised) (German Citizen) may be granted an X-2 (Entry) visa subject to production of her valid German passport. 2. The petitioner (father of minor child) may come on appropriate visa. He is eligible for an X-2 (Entry) visa, subject to usual checks.” Change in the Petitioner’s position 40. In its order on that date, the Court noted that the above clarification was of particular relevance should it decide to determine the question of the child’s custody in favour of Respondent No.2. On the same date, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Anil Malhotra, informed the Court by way of an affidavit tendered on the same date that the Petitioner now intends to relocate to Germany having applied for and secured employment at IMCD, a multi-national chemical distribution company headquartered at Rotterdam, Netherlands. It was further stated therein that he would possibly be posted at the company’s Zurich branch which is purportedly just an hour’s drive from his native place/parents’ home in Lorrach, Germany. The matter was adjourned to 6th September 2018 on which date the Respondent No.2 was to respond to this latest development. 41. At the hearing on 6th September 2018, learned counsel Mr. Prashant Mendiratta appearing for Respondent No.2 stated that there was no change in her stance notwithstanding the Petitioner’s intention to take up employment in Germany. He informed the Court that it would not be possible for her to relocate to Germany. However, Mr. Mendiratta offered that the Petitioner could come to India particularly in light of the assurance given by the Respondent No.2 that she would not pursue any criminal case against him or ask for orders in the case instituted by her in the Family Court in Delhi. 42. On his part, the learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he had been instructed by the Petitioner to state that it was going to be impossible to relocate to India and that according to the Petitioner, there would be no impediment whatsoever to Respondent No.2 and the child relocating to Germany. 42. On his part, the learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he had been instructed by the Petitioner to state that it was going to be impossible to relocate to India and that according to the Petitioner, there would be no impediment whatsoever to Respondent No.2 and the child relocating to Germany. He pointed out that if there is any apprehension about the child not learning the English language while in Germany, the Petitioner was willing to make all possible arrangements for the child to get special tuitions for the same. 43. It was further stated that with the Petitioner intending to relocate to Germany, the question of Respondent No.2 having to participate in any proceedings in the UAE does not arise anymore. The Court was informed that the proceedings earlier instituted by the Petitioner in the Dubai courts have now terminated due to lapse of time. With the Petitioner taking no further steps in that regard, it is stated that as of today, no such proceedings are pending there. He further states that the only proceeding currently pending between the parties is the one instituted in the Family Court in Dwarka by Respondent No.2 in which there has been no further progress owing to the interim orders of this Court. 44. The Court reserved the matter for judgment on 6th September 2018 and on that date, sought to meet the child in the Judge’s chambers. The Petitioner could not reach India for the proceedings in time. The child was reluctant to meet the two of us by herself and insisted on being with her mother, i.e. Respondent No.2 throughout. The Court, however, could gather from the child’s replies that she was not under any pressure. She is pursuing her schooling in Delhi without any difficulty. The child appears to have adjusted well to her present environment. Welfare of the child JUDGMENT : S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is by a German national who states that his wife Respondent No.2, an Indian national, on 10th April 2018, brought away their minor daughter (hereafter ‘the child’) to India from Dubai where they were residing without his knowledge and on an emergency travel document issued in favour of the child by the Consulate General of India (‘CGI’) in Dubai. He prays for a direction to the Respondents to produce the child before the Court and hand her custody over to him. It is further prayed that Respondent No.2 and the child be allowed to return to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’). 2. In this judgment, the names of the parties and some of their personal details have been withheld/anonymised, in order to respect their privacy. Access to the records of this case will be available only to the parties. 3. It is pertinent to note at the outset that although orders in this matter were initially reserved on 22nd May 2018 having heard both parties on merits, this Court by the order dated 1st June 2018 deemed it necessary for both parties to address it further on “working arrangements that can be put in place, within the framework of law, in the event the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or with the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child”. Thus, both parties were directed to file their written notes of submissions in that regard and share advance copies of the same with each other. The matter was then listed on 6th July 2018, on which date the Court was made aware of several developments that had taken shape in the intervening period. Background 4. The Petitioner, a German Christian and Respondent No.2, an Indian Hindu, underwent a Hindu religious ceremony of marriage at New Delhi on 29th December 2011. On 24th January 2012, their marriage was formally solemnized under the Special Marriage Act 1954 at Bangalore. The parents of Respondent No.2 reside in New Delhi. However, neither the Petitioner nor Respondent No.2 lived together in New Delhi at any point in time. They met in Bangalore and resided together at Bangalore and Hyderabad. 5. On 14th March 2013, the child was born to the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 at Bangalore. She has a German passport issued to her by the German Consulate in Bangalore on 6th May 2013. It is valid till 5th May 2019. The child had an Indian passport which was issued on 1st August 2013 and expired on 31st July 2018. The further developments in this regard will be referred to hereafter. 6. In February 2017, the Petitioner found a job in Dubai. Respondent No.2 and the child joined him there in April 2017. It is valid till 5th May 2019. The child had an Indian passport which was issued on 1st August 2013 and expired on 31st July 2018. The further developments in this regard will be referred to hereafter. 6. In February 2017, the Petitioner found a job in Dubai. Respondent No.2 and the child joined him there in April 2017. When this matter was first heard by the Court, the Petitioner was stated to be working as a General Manager in a company based in Abu Dhabi, UAE. His residence permit was stated to be valid up to 7th March 2020. The Petitioner further stated that his parents, who live in Germany, are to retire shortly and being very emotionally attached to the child, proposed to be with her throughout. 7. The child had been attending the German International School in Dubai from September 2017 onwards in kindergarten. The Petitioner is stated to have paid the registration fees, tuition fees, etc. for the academic year ending September 2018. She had been issued an entry permit on 8th April 2018 by the General Directorate of Residence and Foreigners Affairs, Ministry of Interior, UAE on her valid German passport, thus permitting her stay in Dubai. 8. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 admit that there were differences and disputes between them while they lived in Dubai. Sometime in June 2017, Respondent No.2 brought the child to India for a brief period without informing the Petitioner. According to her, this was on account of the Petitioner’s changed behaviour towards her which made it impossible for her to continue living in the matrimonial home. She, however, returned to Dubai with the child in July 2017 and resumed living with the Petitioner there. 9. On 27th October 2017, Respondent No.2 left the house to stay separately in Dubai. In the affidavit filed by her in this Court on 24th May 2018, Respondent No.2 stated that she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home on 27th October 2017 without her daughter as life was becoming unbearable for her on account of the Petitioner’s conduct towards her. The Petitioner, on the other hand, states that he was shocked to learn of the conduct of Respondent No.2 which destroyed their mutual trust and when he confronted her with the facts he had gathered, she left the matrimonial home of her own accord. The Petitioner, on the other hand, states that he was shocked to learn of the conduct of Respondent No.2 which destroyed their mutual trust and when he confronted her with the facts he had gathered, she left the matrimonial home of her own accord. The Court does not propose to dwell on these aspects in this order since they involve disputed questions of fact that may warrant the leading of evidence by the parties. What is relevant to note, however, is that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have acknowledged at this stage that they have irreconcilable differences and that their staying together in the same place as a family is not realistic. 10. To resume the chronological narration of the background events, within a month of their living separately in Dubai, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 entered into a written agreement on 25th November 2017 titled ‘Interim Agreement – Rules of Engagement 25.11.2017’. The said interim agreement began by acknowledging that it was necessitated in order “to keep things clear, free of confusion and misunderstanding and allow time to be taken” between them as a married couple to understand the extent of their marital problems and feelings towards each other. There are 12 clauses in the said agreement, the gist of which is that Respondent No.2 had taken an apartment for herself since 1st November 2017 and was staying separately from the Petitioner and their child “to provide time, distance and space for the Petitioner to process what he came to know of recently”. The Respondent No.2 had the promise and guarantee from the Petitioner to get unlimited access to the child “within boundaries of her safekeeping and needs of upbringing, e.g. ability to reach school bus in the morning, collection from her school bus in the afternoon, being supervised post school prior a parent’s return from work, etc.”. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were to have alternate evenings with the child in their original home where the Petitioner and the child continued to reside during the weekdays with equal time for each to make sure that the child had both parents in her life. Respondent No.2 was permitted to take the child to her separate apartment for two weekends every month. She could collect the child on Thursday afternoon from the school bus or from her home after work until Sunday morning drop off for the school bus. Respondent No.2 was permitted to take the child to her separate apartment for two weekends every month. She could collect the child on Thursday afternoon from the school bus or from her home after work until Sunday morning drop off for the school bus. For the other two weekends per month the child would stay exclusively with the Petitioner. Alternatively, it could be agreed upon to share a weekend with the other parent in the fairest possible way of splitting the child’s time. 11. As far as the present petition is concerned, Clause 7 of the interim agreement is important. This recorded a promise of Respondent No.2 not to leave UAE with the child again without the consent of the Petitioner. Clause 8 records the promise of the Petitioner not to take his daughter out of the country of residence (UAE) except for the already planned week of Christmas vacation in Germany in December 2017 which Respondent No.2 was informed about. Clause 9 recorded the consent of Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner holding the passport and Emirates ID and general day to day care aspects of custody of the child. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 confirmed that as on that day, no legal action had been initiated and “shall not be initiated, unless discussed with or informed to the other partner prior any such steps being taken”. 12. Respondent No.2 now claims that she felt compelled to sign the above interim agreement on the dotted line as she was distraught without the child and was desperate to have even limited access to her. According to Respondent No.2, the agreement subsisted for only 5 months. She was all along trying to make the marriage work but it is the Petitioner who violated the agreement and verbally intimated the Respondent No.2 that he had filed for divorce in Dubai without giving any details. She states that she felt devastated and insecure in a “totally patriarchal” country and was left with no choice but to leave. All of these allegations have been refuted by the Petitioner. 13. The Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Dubai Personal Courts for initiation of a non-Muslim divorce which was accepted for pre-proceedings counselling on 25th March 2018. It was fixed for hearing before the Family Counsellor, Dubai on 11th April 2018. All of these allegations have been refuted by the Petitioner. 13. The Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Dubai Personal Courts for initiation of a non-Muslim divorce which was accepted for pre-proceedings counselling on 25th March 2018. It was fixed for hearing before the Family Counsellor, Dubai on 11th April 2018. According to the Petitioner, intimation of the said proceedings was given telephonically to Respondent No.2 but she did not appear. 14. Interestingly, in a parallel move, Respondent No.2 appears to have travelled to India in March 2018 to file a suit for obtaining an anti-suit injunction so as to restrain the Petitioner from initiating proceedings before the courts in Dubai in relation to their matrimonial dispute. The specific prayer was to restrain the Petitioner from “filing/initiating any petition/suit/claim/case in the nature of divorce proceeding or any other matrimonial proceeding pertaining to marriage between the parties or the minor child of the parties before any other Court except courts of competent jurisdiction in India”. 15. The affidavit of Respondent No.2 in support of the plaint in Suit No.3/2018 in the Family Court, Saket is dated 26th March 2018. In the opening paragraph of the affidavit, Respondent No.2 has given her Dubai address and stated that she is currently residing in Alaknanda, New Delhi. The said suit appears to have been heard on several dates starting from 28th March 2018 onwards. It, therefore, appears that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 parties were anticipating the initiation of court proceedings against each other at around the same time. 16. It must be mentioned at this stage that Respondent No.2 is a qualified lawyer, having completed her B.Com. and her LL.B. from Delhi. In drawing a comparison between herself and the Petitioner on parameters which she states are relevant for determining their respective eligibility to ensure the welfare of the child, Respondent No.2 states that she has worked in law firms and various organizations as a Human Resources Consultant. 17. The Court has consciously not referred to the averments in the petition which refer to the reasons why the Petitioner instituted the divorce proceedings against Respondent No.2 in the courts in Dubai. The Court also does not propose to discuss the allegations and counter allegations made by each of the parties against each other. 17. The Court has consciously not referred to the averments in the petition which refer to the reasons why the Petitioner instituted the divorce proceedings against Respondent No.2 in the courts in Dubai. The Court also does not propose to discuss the allegations and counter allegations made by each of the parties against each other. It appears that they are likely to be involved in litigation concerning their marriage and nothing said here should prejudice their respective rights and contentions in those proceedings. Respondent No.2 brings the child to India 18. In her affidavit dated 24th May 2018, Respondent No.2 stated inter alia that in the face of continued threats of criminal action, Sharia divorce, and apprehending being forcibly deprived of the custody of the child, she was left with no choice but to return to India to her parents. She approached the CGI in Dubai so as to obtain an emergency travel document (‘ETD’) for the child to return to India. She obtained it on 1st April 2018 but could not travel immediately on account of Government procedures and formalities. She was given clearance to travel with the child only on 10th April 2018. She reached India with the child in the early hours of 11th April 2018. 19. A photocopy of the said ETD dated 1st April 2018 and expiring on 30th June 2018 was enclosed with the above affidavit. It reveals that the reason given for issuance of the ETD was “Passport Lost”. In the remarks column it is stated that there existed no objection to issuing a further passport subject to usual checks and Ministry instructions. 20. The Petitioner’s version of what transpired differs. He states that Respondent No.2 knew that he had with him their daughter’s original Indian and German passports and yet misled the CGI into issuing an ETD for their daughter. He alleges that “the CGI, Dubai, colluded with Respondent No.2 in this planned abduction and chose not to contact, confirm or establish the true facts by reaching the petitioner in Dubai”. He has further averred that on 10th April 2018, Respondent No.2 “on the pretext of taking their daughter to a trampoline play area on a visitation, instead left for India and took a flight to leave UAE and flew to New Delhi without the knowledge and consent of the Petitioner”. He has further averred that on 10th April 2018, Respondent No.2 “on the pretext of taking their daughter to a trampoline play area on a visitation, instead left for India and took a flight to leave UAE and flew to New Delhi without the knowledge and consent of the Petitioner”. The Petitioner alleges that “this was all pre-planned and pre-meditated by Respondent No.2 with advance planning and organising her movement to India surreptitiously”. 21. The Petitioner was not successful in getting the CGI to provide him with a copy of the ETD or even the reasons for its issuance. He received an email dated 17th April 2018 from Ms. Sumathi Vasudev of the CGI, Dubai stating inter alia: “2. As I mentioned in my earlier email an Emergency Certificate was issued to (name anonymised) on an application made by her mother (name withheld) We can share with you that in her application (the mother) had reported that the passport of (name anonymised) had been lost and had requested issuance of Emergency Certificate urgently because she wanted to visit her ailing mother in India on medical grounds. She reported that her husband is not in touch with her. 3. As per Government of India rules a single parent can apply for passport on Emergency Certificate if the other parent is not available, by giving an undertaking that he or she will be responsible and liable for any issue arising out of obtaining passport on Emergency Certification on such an undertaking.” 22. The Petitioner contends: “...the rights of petitioner as a father have been violated and the illegal removal of his daughter from Dubai has been abetted by the CGI, permitting the kidnapping of his daughter. Petitioner is astonished that the CGI, Dubai made no efforts or attempts to ascertain from him directly as to why and where the existing passports of minor (name anonymised) were and proceeded to act on one sided statements made by the Respondent No. 2, who was in contact and regular communication with the petitioner. Therefore, the parental rights of petitioner have been violated and in utter contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child have been infringed since their daughter has a right to a family life in Dubai and to continue schooling in Dubai as was the agreement of parties.” 23. After coming to India on 10th April 2018, Respondent No.2 filed, on 21st April 2018, an application against the Petitioner claiming various reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005 (‘PWDV Act’) in the learned MM’s Court at Saket. A copy of this complaint has been enclosed with the affidavit dated 24th May 2018 filed by Respondent in this petition. According to Respondent No.2, the said application lists in detail the cruel acts which she was subjected to and which compelled her to leave Dubai with her daughter in an emergency and return to India. Proceedings before this Court till 22nd May 2018 24. This petition was first heard on 24th April 2018. On that date, Respondent No.2 was present in person. Her counsel accepted notice in the petition. Since both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were willing to explore the possibility of settling their differences and disputes through mediation, and Respondent No.2 was also willing to appear in the mediation centre with the child, the Court directed the parties along with the child to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (‘DHCMCC’). The Petitioner was permitted to meet the child for two hours in the DHCMCC on that day and on the following day. 25. The Court, on 24th April 2018, directed that till the next date of hearing, both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 would be restrained from taking any precipitate action. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 undertook that he would seek adjournment in the above proceedings under the PWDV Act instituted by her. 26. When the case was heard next on 26th April 2018, the Court was informed that no settlement could be reached in the mediation. The judges constituting this Bench first met the child in the Judge’s chambers. We found her to be articulate. In spite of being just 5 years old, she was very aware of what was happening. She was clear that she loved both her parents very much and wanted to stay with both of them. She did not like to have to choose between either. She further stated that she was very happy being in Dubai with her father and attending school there. She asked if her mother could also not come back with her to Dubai so that they could all be together. 27. She did not like to have to choose between either. She further stated that she was very happy being in Dubai with her father and attending school there. She asked if her mother could also not come back with her to Dubai so that they could all be together. 27. We next met Respondent No.2 in the chambers. She was emotional and reacted strongly to the suggestion that she consider returning to Dubai for the welfare of the child. Respondent No.2 explained that she had no help in Dubai and it was not possible for her to continue to live there even in the vicinity of the Petitioner for a variety of reasons, which need not be discussed here. While she cared very much for her child, she pleaded that it would be unfair to deprive her of the custody of the child on the pretext of the child’s best interests. 28. We next met the Petitioner. He stated that he was deeply attached to the child. He explained the circumstances under which the relationship between him and Respondent No.2 broke down and they started living separately since October 2017. He stated that he was not interested in separating Respondent No.2 from the child. He was willing to consider modifications to the earlier arrangement which was in place prior to 10th April 2018. He assured that he was not interested in seeking the criminal prosecution of Respondent No.2 or invoking the Sharia law in the divorce proceedings instituted by him in Dubai. He explained that the child was very happy attending school in Dubai. He stated that his parents were proposing to move in with him in Dubai after their retirement. The Petitioner stated that in his current line of work, there were hardly any job prospects in India. He was doing well in his present job in the UAE. 29. The Court at that stage felt that the parties should still explore the possibility of settlement through mediation and referred them to a second round of mediation at the DHCMCC. This time, a child counsellor and family counsellor were asked to be associated in the mediation process. The Court issued interim directions facilitating the meeting of the Petitioner with his child for two hours every day in the presence of Respondent No.2 either at the DHCMCC or at a mutually agreed convenient place. 30. This time, a child counsellor and family counsellor were asked to be associated in the mediation process. The Court issued interim directions facilitating the meeting of the Petitioner with his child for two hours every day in the presence of Respondent No.2 either at the DHCMCC or at a mutually agreed convenient place. 30. On 5th May 2018, the Court was again informed that the mediation had not succeeded. The report of the child counsellor, submitted to the Court in a sealed cover, stated that the child wished to return to Dubai to resume her schooling. The child counsellor noted that, at that point in time, the child was confused as to whether she wanted to be with her mother in India or with her father in Dubai. She further observed that the child was “facing a difficult phase due to estrangement of her parents” and that “in the given set of circumstances she has expressed her willingness to live with her father”. However, as noted by us, the child clearly did not want to be away from her mother. She expected that her mother would be with her even if she opted to return to school in Dubai. 31. The Court then proceeded to hear the petition on merits. On 22nd May 2018, while reserving judgment for the first time, the Court issued directions permitting the Petitioner to interact with the child from Dubai on video link at a mutually agreed time on a daily basis for about an hour. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 informed the Court that she would place on record a copy of the emergency travel document issued by the Indian embassy in Dubai with the help of which the child was brought to India by Respondent No.2. This was done two days later on 24th May 2018 along with the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2. 32. On 22nd May 2018, Mr. Malhotra, on the instructions of Petitioner, stated that the Petitioner was willing to let Respondent No.2 have the custody of their daughter as long as she returned to Dubai with her. The Petitioner was also willing to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem necessary to impose. 32. On 22nd May 2018, Mr. Malhotra, on the instructions of Petitioner, stated that the Petitioner was willing to let Respondent No.2 have the custody of their daughter as long as she returned to Dubai with her. The Petitioner was also willing to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem necessary to impose. The Petitioner was also prepared to give an assurance to the effect that he would not proceed against Respondent No.2 in Dubai under the Sharia law which according to him, in any event, was not applicable to the parties even as per the procedure evolved under the prevalent legal system in Dubai. 33. However, Respondent No.2 instructed learned counsel Ms. Kamini Jaiswal who was appearing on her behalf to inform the Court that she was not willing to consider the above offer and insisted that the Petitioner would have to come to India if he wants to visit the child and further that under no circumstances would Respondent No.2 return to Dubai with the child. Proceedings after 1st June 2018 34. While preparing its order, the Court noticed the ETD issued in the child’s name submitted by Respondent No.2 which gave rise to the question as to whether the Court’s orders regarding working arrangements for visitation of either spouse can be given effect to within the framework of the law. The case was, therefore, again listed for hearing on 1st June 2018 on which date the following order was passed:- “1. Although the orders were reserved, while further deliberating on the matter the Court felt that both the parties should address it further on the working arrangements that can be put in place, within the framework of law, in the event of the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or with the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child. 2. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 will file their respective notes of submissions on the above aspect after exchanging advance copies at least two weeks prior to the next date. 3. Mr. Malhotra informs that the Petitioner is present today. The Petitioner is permitted to meet the child today for two hours at a mutually convenient place and time in the presence of Respondent No.2. 3. Mr. Malhotra informs that the Petitioner is present today. The Petitioner is permitted to meet the child today for two hours at a mutually convenient place and time in the presence of Respondent No.2. On his future visits to India, the counsel for the Respondent No.2 will be notified by the Petitioner in advance so that a similar visitation can be arranged on every date of his visit. The earlier directions regarding meeting the child through video link will continue. 4. List on 6th July 2018 at 2:15 pm.” 35. On 6th July 2018, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 informed the Court that her daughter’s Indian passport which was due to expire on 31st July 2018 had been renewed for another five years. He sought time to produce the renewed passport and the case was then listed for 9th July 2018. The 9th July 2018 order 36. On 9th July 2018, copies of the renewed Indian passport issued to the child were produced before the Court. An additional affidavit of that date was tendered on behalf of Respondent No.2 offering an explanation regarding the issuance of the said passport. The Court then passed the following detailed order on 9th July 2018:- “1. The Petitioner is a German national, who approached this Court with the present petition stating that his wife, Respondent No.2, has brought away their child, a minor daughter namely (name anonymised) born to them in Bangalore on 14th March, 2013 to India from Dubai where they were residing without his knowledge and on an emergency travel document. The Court has since then been engaged with the question of the custody of the minor child. In the mediation proceedings, attempted during the pendency of the present petition, the parties have not been able to arrive at any acceptable terms of settlement. The child is at present with her mother and both of them are living in Delhi with the parents of Respondent No.2. 2. An issue that has cropped up during the hearing of the petition concerns the passports issued to the minor child. Relevant to this issue are certain facts which are not in dispute. These are that the Petitioner is a German national and Respondent No.2 is an Indian citizen. Their marriage was solemnized in India under, the Special Marriage Act on 24th January, 2012 at Bangalore. Relevant to this issue are certain facts which are not in dispute. These are that the Petitioner is a German national and Respondent No.2 is an Indian citizen. Their marriage was solemnized in India under, the Special Marriage Act on 24th January, 2012 at Bangalore. The child, (name anonymised), was born in Bangalore to the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 on 14th March, 2013. A German Passport bearing No. (withheld by this Court) was issued by the German Consulate in Bangalore to (name anonymised) on 6th May, 2013 and the said passport is valid up to 5th May, 2019. Thereafter, on 1st August, 2013 an Indian Passport bearing No. (withheld by this Court) was issued to (name anonymised) at Bangalore. This is valid up to 31st July, 2018. 3. The Petitioner has in his possession the original of both the above passports. The original passports have been shown to the Court by the Petitioner. He had made an averment to this effect in paras 13 to 15 of his writ petition filed on 23rd April, 2018. There was no specific denial of this fact in the counter affidavit of Respondent No.2. 4. In explaining the circumstances under which she returned to India with her daughter on 10th April 2018 on an emergency travel document issued in favour of (name anonymised), Respondent No.2 stated in para 19 of her counter affidavit, filed oh 11th May, 2018 as under:- "In the above circumstances, the respondent no.2 had no option but to return to India with her daughter. The emergency travel document was secured from the Indian consulate at Dubai since the petitioner had told the respondent that he had lost/misplaced (the child)'s Indian passport. Though the respondent did not realise the actual intent of the petitioner, at that time. However, this is not the first time that the respondent had to return to India in this manner. Even in June 2017 the respondent, along with (the child), had returned to India (on her Indian passport) owing to their differences but went back to Dubai in July 2017 on the insistence & assurance of the petitioner to mend his ways." 5. Further, in an affidavit was filed on 24th May, 2018 Respondent No.2 stated in paras 7 and 8 as under:- "7. That on 1/4/2018, the Respondent approached the Indian Embassy in Dubai and asked for an Emergency Travel Document to return to India. Further, in an affidavit was filed on 24th May, 2018 Respondent No.2 stated in paras 7 and 8 as under:- "7. That on 1/4/2018, the Respondent approached the Indian Embassy in Dubai and asked for an Emergency Travel Document to return to India. I narrated my aforesaid ordeal to the officials of the Indian Embassy who were inclined to help me. I stated to the officials of the Indian Embassy that I feared for my life and liberty in Dubai and that it was absolutely imperative for me and my daughter to return to India. Thereafter, I was issued the Emergency Travel Document with respect to my daughter on 1/4/2018. I was constrained to take the extreme step as aforesaid as I feared not only for myself but the threat of not seeing my daughter ever again. 8. That I could not return to India immediately after obtaining the Emergency Travel Document as several governmental procedural formalities had to be completed which would ensure clearance of my daughter and mine through the immigration at the Dubai Airport. The said Dubai Government formalities took about 10 days to complete and I was given a clearance to travel along with my daughter only on 10/4/2018. I, along with my daughter, reached India at early hours on 11/4/2018. True copy of the Emergency Travel Document issued to my daughter is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE A-2." 6. The photocopy of the emergency travel document enclosed with the above affidavit showed that in the column titled 'reason' it is stated 'passport lost'. This emergency travel document was valid upto 30th June, 2018. 7. The Petitioner has, in para 14 of the petition, reproduced the complete text of an e-mail dated 17th April, 2018 received by him from one Smt. Sumati Vasudev, Consul (Cons. & Labour), Consulate General of India, Dubai in response to his RTI application. It reads as under:- "Dear Mr. M (anonymised), Kindly refer to your email below. I have already sent you a reply on April 2018 giving our response to the various issues raised by you. We had also asked your wife to reply to the comments pertaining to her which have been answered by her with a copy to you. 2. As I mentioned in my earlier email an Emergency Certificate was issued to (name anonymised) on an application made by her mother. We had also asked your wife to reply to the comments pertaining to her which have been answered by her with a copy to you. 2. As I mentioned in my earlier email an Emergency Certificate was issued to (name anonymised) on an application made by her mother. We can share with you that in her application (the mother) had reported that the passport of (the child) had been lost and had requested issuance of Emergency Certificate urgently because she wanted to visit her ailing mother in India on medical grounds. She reported that her husband is not in touch with her. 3. As per the Government of India rules a single parent can apply for passport on Emergency Certificate if the other parent is not available, by giving an undertaking that he or she will be responsible and liable for any issue arising out of obtaining passport on Emergency Certification on such an undertaking. 4. As is clear we reject all your allegations and insinuations. We issued the Emergency Certificate to (the child) as per our rules, as we would issue to any other Indian national." 8. On 1st June, 2018 this Court had asked the parties to present to it a working arrangement within the framework of the law in the event the Court agreed either with the Petitioner or the Respondent No.2, the main consideration being the welfare of the child. At the subsequent hearing of this petition on 6th July 2018 the Court was informed by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the Indian Passport issued to (the child) has been renewed for another five years. He stated that he would produce the said passport before this Court along with the copies of the documents relevant to the renewal. 9. Today, Mr. Mendiratta has produced in the Court an additional affidavit dated 9th July, 2018 of the Respondent No.2 explaining inter alia that since the Indian passport issued to (the child) was expiring. Respondent No.2 had applied for its renewal. Copies of the birth certificate of (name anonymised), the blank copy of the form used by Respondent No.2 for applying for renewal of (the child)'s Indian passport as well as the copy of the renewed Indian passport have been enclosed with the above affidavit as Annexures A-1 to A-3 respectively. Respondent No.2 had applied for its renewal. Copies of the birth certificate of (name anonymised), the blank copy of the form used by Respondent No.2 for applying for renewal of (the child)'s Indian passport as well as the copy of the renewed Indian passport have been enclosed with the above affidavit as Annexures A-1 to A-3 respectively. On a perusal of the original of the renewed passport, the Court finds that it notes "old passport reported lost". The address given in the renewed passport is the address of the parents of the Respondent No.2 in Delhi. 10. The pleadings in the present case show that there was an agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 dated 25th November, 2017 (Annexure-P7) entered into between the parties in Dubai. Paragraph 9 thereof records that the Respondent No.2 agreed to handover the passport and ID of (name anonymised) (valid in the Emirates) to the Petitioner to ensure that (the child) remains there. The case of the Respondent No.2, however, is that the Petitioner had told her that he had "lost/misplaced (name anonymised)'s Indian passport." Be that as it may, after the filing of the present petition, with the Petitioner having positively stated that he had with him the original passports – both German and Indian - issued to (the child), Respondent No.2 could not have, while applying for the renewal of (name anonymised)'s Indian passport told the Indian Passport authority in Delhi that the earlier Indian passport issued to (the child) was lost. It is also not clear what was disclosed (or not) by Respondent No.2 in the application for such renewal of (the child)'s Indian passport. 11. The Court considers it appropriate to bring the above facts to the notice of the Regional Passport Office in Delhi which issued the renewed Indian passport to (name anonymised) on 27th June, 2018 with the expiry date of 26th June, 2023. 11. The Court considers it appropriate to bring the above facts to the notice of the Regional Passport Office in Delhi which issued the renewed Indian passport to (name anonymised) on 27th June, 2018 with the expiry date of 26th June, 2023. The Court accordingly issues notice to the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi requiring him to depute any responsible officer to appear before the Court together with the files concerning the (i) Indian Passport No. (withheld by this Court) dated 1st August, 2013 issued to (the child) by the Regional Passport Office, Bangalore; (ii) Passport (withheld by this Court) dated 1st April, 2018 issued by the Indian Consulate in Dubai to (the child) and (iii) Passport No. (withheld by this Court) issued in favour of (the child) on 27th June, 2018 by the Passport Office in Delhi with an expiry dated of 26th June, 2023. 12. In particular, the applications filed on each instance for issuance of Indian passport for (the child) along with all the other documents submitted with those applications be produced before the Court on the next date. 13. The Court also requests Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India to assist the Court on the aspects of the issuance of the Indian and German passports to (the child) and the correct legal position in that regard. 14. The Petitioner has filed further written submissions today which are taken on record. 15. The Registry is directed to have the notice issued to the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, without process fees, by a Special Messenger forthwith together with a certified copy of this order. 16. The. Registry is also directed to serve forthwith upon Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned ASG, again without process fee, the certified copy of the present order, along with the complete set of paper book (which will be provided by the learned counsel for the Petitioner) and all other previous orders passed in the present petition by this Court. 17. List on 20th July, 2018, at 2.15 pm. The interim orders passed as regards the Petitioner meeting the child in Delhi and over video link shall continue.” Clarification by the Govt. of India 37. On 20th July 2018, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (‘ASG’), Ms. 17. List on 20th July, 2018, at 2.15 pm. The interim orders passed as regards the Petitioner meeting the child in Delhi and over video link shall continue.” Clarification by the Govt. of India 37. On 20th July 2018, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (‘ASG’), Ms. Maninder Acharya, appeared and sought to examine the legal issues that arose as a result of the above developments, in light of the Citizenship Act 1955 as well as the Passports Act 1967 and the rules thereunder. While continuing the interim orders, the case was adjourned to 30th July 2018 when submissions of the learned ASG on the above aspect were heard. On 9th August 2018, when the case was heard next, an affidavit was filed by Mr. Arun K. Chatterjee, Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer, CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India in which it was stated inter alia that the child “ceased to be a citizen of India following her acquisition of a German Passport”. It was further noted that this fact had not been disclosed to the Passport Office by Respondent No.2 while the application for the same was being made. Stating that had this information been available, the application would have been declined, the affidavit concludes by noting that the passport issued to the child in 2018 “cannot be deemed to be a valid passport now since it has been brought to the notice of the Government that the child holds a valid German Passport and is, therefore, a German national”. 38. After noting the contents of the affidavit, the Court passed an order on 9th August 2018 wherein the following observations were made:- “2. Upon a query by the Court as to the consequence of the Indian passport issued to (the child) not being a valid passport and in the particular context of her being a child aged five years, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, states that she will have to seek instructions on the question of issuance of an Indian visa to the child. 3. It may be noted at this stage that Mr. Mendiratta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that the determination recorded in the aforementioned affidavit cannot be treated as final since the procedure under the Passports Act, 1967 for arriving at such a determination is yet to be complied with. 4. 3. It may be noted at this stage that Mr. Mendiratta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that the determination recorded in the aforementioned affidavit cannot be treated as final since the procedure under the Passports Act, 1967 for arriving at such a determination is yet to be complied with. 4. The Court has also asked Ms. Acharya to clarify the question of issuance of visa to the Petitioner for visitation in the event this Court decides the issue of custody of (the child) in favour of Respondent No.2. She states that on this issue as well, she will seek instructions and revert on the next date of hearing. 5. On his part, Mr. Anil Malhotra has produced a legal opinion dated 11th July 2018 of the Counsellor and Consul, Head of Legal and Consular Section of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi where inter alia it is stated as under: "German Citizenship can, in certain circumstances, be lost through voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship (naturalization after voluntary application), in accordance with Article 25 of the German Citizenship Act. The issuance of a foreign passport to a minor child by a passport agency of a foreign country can never trigger the loss of German citizenship, if it has not been preceded by a full naturalization process, and even in this case only if all legal representatives of the minor have applied for such naturalization jointly, and if competent German authorities and Court have been heard. The Embassy has been informed that the mentioned minor child's mother has obtained a new Indian passport for the child. The Embassy cannot speculate if the mentioned minor child is indeed an Indian citizen. The Embassy can, however, confirm that (name anonymised), the mentioned child, has not lost her German citizenship through her mother's successful application for an Indian passport." 6. List on 21st August 2018 at 4 pm. 7. Interim orders to continue. The compilation of case law tendered by Mr. Malhotra is taken on record.” 39. At the hearing on 28th August 2018, a written clarification of the Joint Deputy Director and FRRO dated 24th August 2018 was placed before the Court by the learned ASG which read as follows:- “1. The petitioner’s minor child (name anonymised) (German Citizen) may be granted an X-2 (Entry) visa subject to production of her valid German passport. 2. At the hearing on 28th August 2018, a written clarification of the Joint Deputy Director and FRRO dated 24th August 2018 was placed before the Court by the learned ASG which read as follows:- “1. The petitioner’s minor child (name anonymised) (German Citizen) may be granted an X-2 (Entry) visa subject to production of her valid German passport. 2. The petitioner (father of minor child) may come on appropriate visa. He is eligible for an X-2 (Entry) visa, subject to usual checks.” Change in the Petitioner’s position 40. In its order on that date, the Court noted that the above clarification was of particular relevance should it decide to determine the question of the child’s custody in favour of Respondent No.2. On the same date, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Anil Malhotra, informed the Court by way of an affidavit tendered on the same date that the Petitioner now intends to relocate to Germany having applied for and secured employment at IMCD, a multi-national chemical distribution company headquartered at Rotterdam, Netherlands. It was further stated therein that he would possibly be posted at the company’s Zurich branch which is purportedly just an hour’s drive from his native place/parents’ home in Lorrach, Germany. The matter was adjourned to 6th September 2018 on which date the Respondent No.2 was to respond to this latest development. 41. At the hearing on 6th September 2018, learned counsel Mr. Prashant Mendiratta appearing for Respondent No.2 stated that there was no change in her stance notwithstanding the Petitioner’s intention to take up employment in Germany. He informed the Court that it would not be possible for her to relocate to Germany. However, Mr. Mendiratta offered that the Petitioner could come to India particularly in light of the assurance given by the Respondent No.2 that she would not pursue any criminal case against him or ask for orders in the case instituted by her in the Family Court in Delhi. 42. On his part, the learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he had been instructed by the Petitioner to state that it was going to be impossible to relocate to India and that according to the Petitioner, there would be no impediment whatsoever to Respondent No.2 and the child relocating to Germany. 42. On his part, the learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he had been instructed by the Petitioner to state that it was going to be impossible to relocate to India and that according to the Petitioner, there would be no impediment whatsoever to Respondent No.2 and the child relocating to Germany. He pointed out that if there is any apprehension about the child not learning the English language while in Germany, the Petitioner was willing to make all possible arrangements for the child to get special tuitions for the same. 43. It was further stated that with the Petitioner intending to relocate to Germany, the question of Respondent No.2 having to participate in any proceedings in the UAE does not arise anymore. The Court was informed that the proceedings earlier instituted by the Petitioner in the Dubai courts have now terminated due to lapse of time. With the Petitioner taking no further steps in that regard, it is stated that as of today, no such proceedings are pending there. He further states that the only proceeding currently pending between the parties is the one instituted in the Family Court in Dwarka by Respondent No.2 in which there has been no further progress owing to the interim orders of this Court. 44. The Court reserved the matter for judgment on 6th September 2018 and on that date, sought to meet the child in the Judge’s chambers. The Petitioner could not reach India for the proceedings in time. The child was reluctant to meet the two of us by herself and insisted on being with her mother, i.e. Respondent No.2 throughout. The Court, however, could gather from the child’s replies that she was not under any pressure. She is pursuing her schooling in Delhi without any difficulty. The child appears to have adjusted well to her present environment. Welfare of the child