Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Occasionally, the sister of the petitioner came to visit them. She was also not treated well by respondent No.4.

In October 2019, the petitioner had to go abroad. In his absence also, the behaviour of respondent No.4 with the mother and sister of the petitioner remained the same. So much so, the mother of the petitioner was thrown out of the house in January 2020. In March 2020, without the consent of the petitioner, respondent No.4 2 of 40 CRWP-8954-2021(O&M) (3) left the house at Noida along with the children and started living at her parental house in Sonepat. Respondent No.4 took away all documents, jewellery and clothes with her. Respondent No.4 got registered a false FIR No.0667 dated 25.09.2020 under Sections 323, 380, 392 and 498-A IPC against the mother and sister of the petitioner at City Police Station, Sonepat. The petitioner returned to India in October 2020. He visited the parental house of respondent No.4 with a view to take her back to Jind. On the last date of his stay at Sonepat i.e 22.10.2020, the petitioner celebrated the birthday of respondent No.4. Soon after the celebrations, respondent No.4 and her family called the police. The petitioner was arrested. On 31.10.2020, a compromise/settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 agreed to withdraw the case. Thereafter, the FIR was cancelled by the police on 28.11.2020. However later respondent No.4 changed her mind and lodged a complaint for re-opening of the FIR. The petitioner has not been able to meet his minor children despite repeated requests.

The case came up for hearing on 17.05.2021 on which date, notice of motion was issued to respondent Nos.4 & 5 for 14.10.2021.

The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No.1175 of 2021 seeking pre-ponement of date of hearing of the petition. He also filed an additional affidavit dated 21.09.2021 wherein he stated that on 21.5.2021, in a whatsapp chat, respondent No.4 disclosed to him that the children were in U.K. However, respondent No.4 refused to disclose her address in U.K. The petitioner complained to the police at Jind, Sonepat and Noida that respondent No.4 had taken his children to U.K without his consent and during the period when there was complete lock down putting their lives at risk. However, the police did not take any action. The petitioner thereafter got in touch with his Solicitors in London for seeking online remedy in U.K for return of the children to India. As per legal advice received, he filed an online application on 13.07.2021 in the High Court Justice, Family Division, London for an inherent jurisdiction order in relation to the minor children, Nitya Chugh, born on 13.9.2011 and Kiaan Chugh born on 15.2.2019. He sought the relief of summary return of children to India, for their location and passport orders and for a range of prohibited step orders. On 26.07.2021 the High Court Justice, Family Division, London passed an order that respondent No.4 shall make the children available to spend time with the 4 of 40 CRWP-8954-2021(O&M) (5) petitioner (father) by way of video and/or telephone calls every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 18.00 GMT. As per the order, the petitioner was on video conferencing (Zoom calls) with his daughter and son twice a week. However, whenever he spoke to his son at 6.00 p.m British time (10.30 p.m Indian time), the background of the video calls was always hidden. Most of the times he found his son half asleep. He could not understand this. The petitioner further got suspicious when he found exposure in video call of a rotating ceiling fan. To know the exact location of his son Kiaan Chugh, on 16.09.2021, the petitioner accompanied by his brother Sanjiv Chugh, sister Poonam Rani and their mother visited the residence of respondent Nos.5 & 6 at Sonepat at about 5.00 p.m. When the petitioner was approaching the street near the house of respondents 5 and 6, he found his son Kiaan Chugh playing with his maternal grand-mother. Seeing the petitioner, Kiaan Chugh rushed towards him. However, he was snatched away by his maternal grand-mother who told the petitioner that the child was not his son. Meanwhile, respondents 5 and 6 also arrived there. They, along with some neighbours assaulted the petitioner. A CT scan of chest of petitioner revealed fracture of the anterior ends of right 5th and 6th rib. The petitioner remained hospitalized for two days i.e 16.9.2021 to 18.09.2021. He prayed that a warrant officer be appointed and minor Kiaan Chugh be produced before the Court along with his passport.

He came back in the last week of September 2019. On 13.10.2019 he again went back to U.K. From there he went to USA in second week 32 of 40 CRWP-8954-2021(O&M) (33) of November 2019. In March 2020, when the petitioner was not in the country respondent No. 4, without his consent, left the house at Noida along with the children and started living at her parental house in Sonepat. Respondent No.4 got registered FIR No.0667 dated 25.09.2020 under Sections 323, 380, 392 and 498-A IPC against the mother and sister of the petitioner at City Police Station, Sonepat. The petitioner returned to India in October 2020. He visited the parental house of respondent No.4 with a view to take her back to Jind. On the last date of his stay at Sonepat i.e 22.10.2020, the petitioner celebrated the birthday of respondent No.4. Soon after the celebration, respondent No.4 and her family called the police. The petitioner was arrested. On 31.10.2020, a compromise/settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 agreed to withdraw the case. Thereafter the FIR was cancelled by the police on 28.11.2020. Respondent No.4 disputes this. It is her case that no cancellation report has been accepted in this case.

After initiating proceedings before the High Court Justice Family Division, London the petitioner moved the present habeas corpus petition. Kiaan Chugh has been found to be residing with respondent No.5 and 6 at Sonepat. The petitioner along with some family members went to Sonepat to find out the whereabouts of Kiaan. An altercation took place between him and respondents No.5 and 6. The petitioner sustained injuries. He remained hospitalized for two days. Cross FIRs have been registered by both the parties regarding this incident. Respondent No.4 has explained that she had to go to U.K to protect her and Nitya's P.R. status. Kiaan could not be taken along as his passport could not be got prepared as all the documents had been taken by the petitioner. Respondent No.4 intends to come to India and take Kiaan to UK but is unable to do so as the Court in UK on the application of the petitioner has ordered 34 of 40 CRWP-8954-2021(O&M) (35) seizure of her passport etc. The position thus is that the petitioner and respondent No.4 along with their children Nitya and Kiaan lived as family in U.K. They came to India on 29.06.2019. Kiaan was about four months old then. Except for about one month in September-October, 2019 the petitioner remained out of the country from 22.07.2019 to October 2020. Respondent No.4 along with the children moved to her parents house in Sonepat when the petitioner was abroad. The petitioner has had no contact with the children since his return in October 2020 except for the few days that he stayed at Sonepat in the parental house of respondent No. 4 where he was arrested on 22.10.2020. Thereafter vide order dated 26.7.2021 the High Court Justice, Family Division, London had directed that respondent No.4 to make Nitya and Kiaan available to spend time with the petitioner by way of video and/or telephone calls every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 18.00 GMT. This arrangement has continued since then.