ORDER : 1. The present dispute emanates from a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father (respondent No.1 herein) against the petitioners herein, who are none else than the grandfather, mother of the child and the maternal granduncle. 2. The High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the Habeas Corpus petition and directed that the custody of the minor child to be handed over to respondent No.1 (father). 3. After perusal of the pleadings of the Habeas Corpus petition and the counter affidavit, it appears that the High Court was of the view that petitioner No. 2, while leaving India, left the child with the grandparents without intimation to respondent No.1 (father) which seems to have created a doubt in the mind of respondent No.1 about welfare of the child, causing to take recourse by filing the Habeas Corpus petition. Against the order of the High Court, the petitioners have taken recourse before this Court. 4. However, while issuing notice on 13.12.2021 and staying of the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana it was made clear that petitioner will not allow the child to be taken abroad. Later, as per order dated 20.04.2022, visitation was permitted to the father. 5. Due to strained relationship of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 and on account of not following the order of visitation, arguments and counter arguments have been advanced as also proceedings for contempt have been initiated. 6. It may not be lost sight of that petitioner No. 2 and respondent No.1 have been granted orders in their favour for divorce by London Court as well as Court in India. But they are litigating on the issue of jurisdiction of the Court granting divorce. Their mindset appears to be that for divorce, they have no objection, but they have objection on the issue as to which Court should exercise the jurisdiction for grant of divorce. In our view, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No.1 may have litigation because they may not have better understanding, for which a better sense should prevail in future on them, but it may not be an impediment to the welfare and betterment of the child in question as well daughter-Nitya, born in the year 2011, who is with the mother. 7. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, we intend to know the bona fides of petitioner No.2 simultaneously. It was also observed by this Court on previous occasion while having a discussion in chambers with the child-Kiaan i.e., on 15.07.2024 that he needs moral support which can possibly be provided by his sibling (Nitya). 8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated before us that petitioner No.2 is ready to come in mid of March, 2025. It is stated that there is an order restricting journey of Nitya from London. The said fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. After taking note of the contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that petitioner No. 2 along with the child (Nitya) should travel to India and if any permission is required from the London Court, same be obtained by applying immediately in this regard and we see no reason as to why such reasonable request would not be favourably be considered by Court of London or State authorities. 10. We further observe and request the Court which passed the restrictive order to consider the request for granting permission to Nitya to travel to India which would be in the best interest and welfare of the children, otherwise, it may have an adverse impact on the overall welfare of the siblings, who are of tender age. 11. We make it clear that to seek permission in this regard, pendency of the proceedings before this Court or any other Court, would not have no impediment for grant such permissions. 12. The order granting visitation rights shall remain in operation. As pointed out before us, 15.02.2025 is the birthday of Kiaan, who is with his grandparents (maternal side). Master Kiaan is allowed to go with the father (respondent No.1) on 14th February, 2025, at about 9 a.m. and respondent No.1 shall ensure that minor boy returns to his maternal grandparents house by 16th February, 2025, before 7 p.m. 13. As requested, list the matter on 18th March, 2025 to be taken up immediately after fresh matters.