PARAMJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) JOINT statement of the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been recorded separately and is placed on record. Prayer in Criminal Writ Petition: The instant habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner - Karan Singh Bajwa against respondent Jasmine Bajwa wife and Jasbir Singh Sandhu father-in-law for production, release and return of the minor children, namely, Kundani Bajwa, daughter and Harman Singh Bajwa, son (hereinafter to be referred as "the children"), who have acquired permanent resident status by immigration to Canada. The averments in petition are that the children have been illegally, wrongfully detained by respondent no.1 Mr. Jasbir Singh Sandhu father-in-law and respondent no.2 -wife Ms Jasmine Bajwa, allegedly contrary to the sole custody and restriction orders dated 01.01.2012 (date of orders is incorrectly mentioned in this petition) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada vide Annexures P/18 and P/19, correct date of these orders is dated 01.08.2012, made without notice to Ms. Jasmine. This Court after perusing the documents on paper book submitted to this Court and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner passed the following order on 07.08.2012: "Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is father of minor Harman Singh Bajwa, born on 22.11.2006 and Kundani Bajwa, born on 31.12.2001. Harman Singh Bajwa was born in Canada and Kundani Bajwa was born in India, but has adopted Canada as a country of permanent resident. The petitioner is also a permanent resident of Canada and presently is in full time regular employment as a Senior Chief Engineer with British Columbia Ferries at British Columbia, Canada. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the age of Harman Singh Bajwa is 6 years, so even under the Custody laws of India, custody vests in the father. Similar is the position of Kundani Bajwa. Learned counsel further contends by referring to various documents that the children have studied in the various schools at British Columbia, Canada. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the children from their childhood have resided in Canada and have acquired the habits and culture of that country. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the children and mother (respondent No.2) had come to India for enjoying holidays from 22.06.2012 to 03.08.2012 and the air tickets have been issued for this very visit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in fact, respondent No.1 in connivance with respondent No.2 is not permitting the children to come out and even the very visit which was as a picnic for them had been spoiled for them. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had approached the Canadian Court wherein orders (Annexure P/18 and P/19) have been passed wherein it has been held that the children, namely, Harman Singh Bajwa and Kundani Bajwa are habitual residents of Canada and even the movements of the children out of Canada has been restrained. Learned counsel further contends that as per orders (Annexures P/18 and P/19), the custody of the children solely vests in the father. During most of the period, except the period from 24.06.2012 till date, they have been in Canada. As per the Canadian Laws, as well as, Indian Laws as applicable to the petitioner and respondent No.2, petitioner is entitled to the custody even the custody, vests in the petitioner. Notice of motion for 09.08.2012. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the Harman Singh Bajwa is a Canadian citizen, a notice may be issued to the Consulate General of Canada, Chandigarh as they have already intervened. On the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, Consulate General of Canada, Chandigarh is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No.5 and notice be issued to him. The address of respondent No.5 will be supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the Memo of Parties accordingly. Keeping in view these facts as averred in the petition, since the children are in the custody of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without any authority of law, this Court deems it fit and proper that a warrant officer be appointed for taking custody of the children and they be brought to this Court along with their passports. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to nominate a Warrant Officer, who shall visit the place/places to be pointed out by the petitioner to search out the children with the help of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The charges of Warrant Officer, as assessed by the Registry, are to be borne by the petitioner. The Warrant Officer shall submit his report on or before the adjourned date of hearing." Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Warrant Officer of this Court traced the children with their mother Ms Jasmine at her parental house in Patiala and produced the children in Court on 08.08.2012. The parties also appeared in person along with their learned counsel.
(3.) I heard the children, the couple and father-in-law of the petitioner individually and jointly in the chamber. After hearing the petitioner, wife - Jasmine, her father and children, prima facie, I came to a conclusion that this dispute has embroiled upon some mis-understanding between the couple; the petitioner appears to have rushed in huff to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of British Columbia for sole custody, restraint order and children abduction complaint. It is common, in matrimonial disputes that parties rush to the Courts in hot haste without realizing the consequences that may follow thereafter, sometime even leading to marriage break down. During conversation, I advised Jasmine and her father not to file counter to the petition at this stage. I also advised them that before taking recourse to the Court proceedings in such type of cases, one should think twice. I reminded the couple of their vows taken before the sacred book of their faith and told about the significance of the "Anand Karaj" (Blissful Union) and the four holy verses sung while performing the four wedding rounds, walking around the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, sacred book of Sikhs, as bride and bridegroom in the presence of congregation. During the Court mediation efforts, after hearing the parties, I deemed it appropriate to take personal initiative to save the family instead of sending parties to mediation center of this Court. I reminded them about their culture, values and moral commitments, how the marriage differences used to be solved in their country of origin (India) where they have grown up. They should recall their past and see how their parents and ancestors used to solve family issues, the seriousness of adverse effect on growth and mental state of the children in case of prolonging disputes and misunderstanding between parents. I suggested to the couple for amicable settlement of their dispute. They willingly agreed to my suggestion. Considering my suggestions they did not even had a second thought, they immediately willingly agreed to reside together initially on experimental basis along with children for a week. Accordingly, direction was issued to live together in a hotel in Chandigarh and following order was passed by this Court on 08.08.2012: "Parties are present in person. In pursuance of order dated 07.08.2012, the Warrant Officer has produced the children in Court, today, I have persuaded the parties. The parties have agreed that they will stay for a week in one of the Hotels i.e. Taj, Mountview or Marriott in Sector 17/35, Chandigarh. List on 09.08.2012." ;