1. The 1st petitioner, along with the mother – the 2nd petitioner, seek the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, to command the 4th respondent, her former husband, to produce her two children - now aged 11 and 6 years respectively, before this Court and set them at liberty; asserting that he has retained them illegally and in contravention of binding orders issued by a jurisdictional family court in the United Kingdom, where they were all living.

2. Sri.Abdul Rasheed K.I.- learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the entire family was living in the United Kingdom; when abruptly, on 11.01.2026, the 4th respondent took the children and came back to India, without informing his client. He explained that his client was living in the United Kingdom, along with the the 4th respondent; and that the later had been ordered to leave United Kingdom, since his Visa was expiring on 11.01.2026. He submitted that, however, the Family Court in the United Kingdom, had, by then, issued an order dated 08.01.2026 - interestingly, in an application filed by the 4th respondent himself - that he and the 1st petitioner shall apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom with respect to both their children on 08.01.2026 or immediately thereafter, adverting to the factum of his Visa expiring on 11.01.2026. He imputed that the 4th respondent, however, in blatant disregard to such orders and exhibiting callous attitude towards the 1st petitioner removed himself and the children from United Kingdom without informing her; thus, leaving her without any other option, but to travel to India and to file this original petition. He contended that the 1st petitioner still has permission to continue in United Kingdom; and therefore, that the actions of the 4th respondent, in having removed the children from the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Bromley - where the matter filed by him is next listed for hearing on 10.08.2026 - is illegal, unlawful; thus enabling her to obtain their custody. He concluded saying that, the children have been living and studying in the United Kingdom until 11.01.2026, and that their abrupt removal to India has caused them irreparable scar and trauma.

3. In response, Sri.N.L.Bitto - learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted that his client has done nothing wrong or illegal, even going by the laws of the United Kingdom, because, as per Ext.R4(a) order dated 12.11.2025, he had no other option but to leave the United Kingdom along with the children, failing which, all of them would have been taken into custody and proceeded against him. He relied upon Ext.R4(b) order dated 23.12.2025 in substantiation, showing that the direction therein is specifically that his client and the children will not be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom after 11.01.2026.

4. Interestingly, Sri.N.L.Bitto thereafter conceded, to pointed questions from this Court, that Ext.R4(d) reserved liberty to the mother - namely the 1st petitioner herein - to apply, if she was intending for the children to come under her Visa; but explained that this would have been of no consequence because, the said order itself says that such an application was unlikely to be successful, since the children do not have a right to remain in the United Kingdom. He further conceded, again in answer to a question from us, that Ext.R4(e) order was, thereafter, issued on 08.01.2026, by the Family Court at Bromley, directing the couple to make an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom in respect of both children; but that his client did not do so, because he was advised that such an application would not be allowed; and that the leave for the children to remain in the United Kingdom will not be granted beyond 11.01.2026. He added that, it is in such apprehension, that his client took the decision to return to India on 11.01.2026 itself; and hence predicated that he has committed no wrong.

5. Before we move forward in our consideration of the rival submissions as recorded above, we must record that we had tried to find a solution between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent, adverting to the trauma being forced upon the children on account of their strife. This is evident from the interim order of this Court dated 29.01.2026 - when the parties were before us; and the observations therein are required to be read in full, for which it, is extracted as under.

                  “The parties were before us along with the children.                        2. We interacted with the children   and must say that we were heartbroken to see the kind of suffering that they are going through. Both of them were crying silently, obviously bearing the heavy burden of the strife of their parents. We saw both the parents persuading the children to be with them - the mother in the U.K. and their father in Kerala.

                  3. The children were completely confused, but exhibited equal affection for both parents. It is a rather unfortunate situation that parents - whether they are divorced as husband and wife, or otherwise - cannot get a grip on the life of their children; and - albeit inadvertently - push them into the throes of angst since, either way, they will have to be separated from one of the parents.

                  4. The father maintained before us that the children cannot return to the U.K. with the mother because they will not obtain visas. The mother, however, contented to the contrary, saying that she will be able to manage it.

                  5. The younger of the children - the girl, did not tell us any particular preference; but the elder boy told us that he would prefer to be in India because he had some bad experience in school in the U.K. Of course, these impressions are that of a very young mind and ought not be the only deciding factor.

                  6. The care and affection of a mother is indispensable to every child; while the security and the support of the father is as important.

                  7. In this case, we will have to find a balance because, the parents are divorced and can never come together again. We cannot fructify that hope of the children.

                  8. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that we allow the mother to inform us how she plans to take the children with her and the steps that are required for that purpose, before we take a final decision on how their time will have to be divided.

                  9. No doubt, as matters now stand, the children will have to be between parents who are countries apart, as we have said above. This appears to be inevitable, unless one of them decide to shift to the place of the other.

                  10. Until the next posting date, the children will continue with the mother. However, we direct the parties to be present before us on the next posting date, along with the children.”

6. The parties, with the children, again appeared before us on 03.02.2026 and, thereafter, on 09.02.2026; and we were under the impression that they would be able to find a solution, so as to spare the children of any further deleterious impact. However, the submissions today made before us by the learned counsel for parties, limpidly indicate that no such is possible.

7. As we observed in the afore extracted order, in fact, the impact of parents' fight on the children is unmistakable. The elder boy is no longer smiling, is always brooding with tears rolling down his cheeks; and when we asked him, he requested us to take an apposite decision and left to us to choose the parent with whom he should be living with. The younger girl, who is very young, was crying uncontrollably, but silently with tears flowing from her eyes making us feel aghast.

8. That, therefore, leaves us without any other option, but hear this matter on merits and take a final decision.

9. Most of the facts involved in this case are without context.

10. That the parents were living with the children in the United Kingdom till 11.01.2026, is admitted. That the 4th respondent came to India with the children on 11.01.2026, is also expressly admitted.

11. The only controversy is whether the 4th respondent acted as per law; and if not, whether the children can be found to be illegally detained by him.

12. No doubt, as per Ext.R4(a) dated 12.11.2025, the 4th respondent was intimated that his Visa to remain in the United Kingdom would expire on 11.01.2026; and then through Ext.R4(b) dated 23.12.2025, he was also told that, unless the permits were renewed or other arrangements made, his continuation in the United Kingdom would be illegal. However, Ext.R4(b) further mentions that the mother - namely the 1st petitioner herein - could have applied for the children to be brought under her Visa; though with the caveat that, it may be unlikely to be successful since the children did not have a right to remain in the United Kingdom. This does not mean that the 1st petitioner – mother, had no right to apply at all; but solely, that her application may or may not have been successful, depending upon the legal processes as are applicable.

13. At this juncture, it is crucially relevant to note that the first “child custody order”, under the Children Act, 1989, of the United Kingdom, was obtained by the 4th respondent, as evident from Ext.P1 order dated 29.07.2024. The said order took note of the fact that the parents had divorced each other on a “no-fault basis”; and thus provided for the division of time of the children between them. It is subsequent to this order, that the 4th respondent was notified through Ext.R4(a) by the Authorities concerned in the United Kingdom, that his entry clearance as a skilled worker has been cancelled and that it will end on 11.01.2026. He was also notified that his children, who were taken as part of his family sponsored by him, would also be affected by this cancellation and that they would have to return to India as a unit.

14. It is the afore statement in Ext.R4(a), that is now been taken advantage of by the 4th respondent; and he bolsters it through Ext.R4(b, saying that he and his children had no other option but to return to India on or before 11.01.2026.

15. However, there are certain very vital aspects involved in this case, namely, that even as per Ext.R4(b), the 1st petitioner - mother had the right to apply for the children to come under her Visa; though she was told, as we have recorded earlier, that such an application may not be successful because the children did not have the right to remain in the United Kingdom.

16 If the matter had ended there, perhaps, this Court would not have found reason to intervene; but it was not so.

17. The 4th respondent himself seems to have then approached the Family Court at Bromley, United Kingdom, to invite an order on 08.01.2026, a copy, interestingly, has been produced by himself as Ext.R4(e); whereby, the parents (meaning the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent) were directed to make an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom in respect of both children, clearly mentioning that their current leave to remain expires on 11.01.2026. The said order then specified the time lines for the matter to be taken forward, fixing 05.02.2026 to be the next relevant date; and thereafter, on 30.07.2026, directing the parties to specify with whom the children will live, where the children will live, how they should be able to see both parents and such other. The hearing of the matter has been, thereafter, fixed to be on 10.08.2026 at 10.00 a.m.

18. Pertinently, Ext.R4(e) further records that the children are in the mother’s care and that she wishes this to continue, and for her and the children to remain in the United Kingdom. The order, no doubt, also notifies the 1st petitioner that, for obtaining such a leave, the children would have had to have lived in the United Kingdom for at least seven years.

19. It is thus ineluctable that proceedings between the parents are still going on in the United Kingdom; and that the matter, as said above, is listed in the Family Court at Bromley on 10.08.2026.

20. It is in blatant disregard to Ext.R4(e) order, that the 4th respondent decided to leave the United Kingdom with the children; and his learned counsel unequivocally admits that he refused to make an application, as he was directed in the said order. The explanation offered by him is that the 4th respondent believes that such an application would have been worthless – we do not know how he says this and on what basis he maintains so.

21. When it is apodictic that it is the 4th respondent himself who moved the Family Court at Bromley and invited Ext.R4(e) order - thus, being fully aware of his obligations under it to make the application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for his children and thereafter to appear before the said court on 10.08.2026 - he acted in a malicious manner in, thereafter, exiting the United Kingdom and coming to India on 11.01.2026 itself with the children, and that too without the knowledge of the 1st petitioner.

22. This is the unkindest cut of all, particularly when the children are so young and they seem attached to both the parents equally.

23. It is merely because the Visa of the 4th respondent was expiring on 11.01.2026 and since the children were attached to him as his dependents, that he chose to travel with them to India, defying all the orders issued by the Family Court in the United Kingdom. The reasons stated by him is equally baffling that, he could not remain in the United Kingdom after 11.01.2026 because his Visa would stand cancelled; but, without being able to tell us how we thought that the children would then become illegal residents, in spite of Ext.R4(e) order of the Family Court at Bromley, dated 08.01.2026.

24. Merely to re-iterate, the aforesaid order, adverts specifically to the factum of the 4th respondent’s Visa expiring on 11.01.2026, thus directing him to make an application for leave to remain in the country for the children; but he chose not to do so and to totally disregard and defy it, and to flee to India with his children on 11.01.2026.

25. The actions of the 4th respondent are perspicuously, therefore, illegal, contrary to law and wholly against established principles of parenting, when the 1st petitioner - mother was still continuing in the United Kingdom, completely unaware that this has been done to her and that the children had been taken away. She then travelled to India to prosecute this original petition and we find her fully justified.

26. Sri.Abdul Rasheed - learned counsel for the petitioners, at this time, intervened to say that the passports of the children are with the 4th respondent and that he is refusing to release it to the 1st petitioner. He imputed that the attempt of the 4th respondent is to hold the children to himself and thus push the 1st petitioner to a sense of despondency since she has no other option but to travel to the United Kingdom, to live and work there, being without any other source of livelihood. He, therefore, pleaded that, in the event this Court is to find in his clients’ favour, then directions also be issued to the 4th respondent to hand over to her the passports of the children, so that she can then take them to United Kingdom on her Visa.

27. Sri.N.L.Bitto - learned counsel for the 4th respondent, responded, saying that, even going by the assertions of the 1st petitioner, she can live in the United Kingdom only till the end of 2026. He asserted that, therefore, any permission for her to take the children back to the said country, would be contrary to their interests.

28. We cannot obtain favour with the afore submissions of Sri.N.L.Bitto, when, as seen above, we have already concluded affirmatively that the 4th respondent has acted in a manner, which is unconscionable, inequitable and hence, unlawful.

29. In the above circumstances, we allow this writ petition and direct that the children shall continue with the mother, with full competence being vested in her, to take them with her to United Kingdom as per law. We, consequently, direct the 4th respondent to produce the passports of the children before this Court on or before 16.02.2026, so that it can then be handed over to the 1st petitioner in compliance of the afore directions.

30. That being ordered, we are certain that the children can never be alienated from either of the parents, whatever be the strife they may have between them. In an ideal situation, the children should obtain equal time and company of the parents; with their time being equally divided, as has been done by the family court in Bromley. This, perhaps, may have been possible, had the 4th respondent acted in good faith in terms of Ext.R4(e) order; but it is because of his own actions that he has now lost any opportunity of returning to the United Kingdom, to be with the children. We cannot blame any one else for what he has done and for what he has brought upon himself.

31. However, it is essential that the children should be able to have continuous access to and contact with the father; and that he should be able to see them whenever it is possible, either in the United Kingdom or in India. If the 4th respondent is to obtain permission to travel to the United Kingdom in future, surely, he and the 1st petitioner would have to abide by the orders to be issued by the Family Court in the United Kingdom, and the time of the children would be divided as per its directives.

32. Until such time, however, we order that after the children are taken away by the mother to the United Kingdom in terms of the afore directions, the following shall bind the parents:

                  (a) The 4th respondent will be at full liberty to talk with the children every evening between 6.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. (U.K time)- both on video calls; and voice calls, and we record the undertaking of Sri.Abdul Rasheed that the 1st petitioner will facilitate this without any impediment.

                  (b) The 1st petitioner shall not change the nationality of the children as available now, without the express written permission of the 4th respondent, or until such time as they are able to make arrangements between themselves, if any, or through law.

                  (c) The petitioners will ensure that the children are brought to India for a minimum period of 30 days every year, coinciding with their annual school leave or such other; and the 1st petitioner shall inform the 4th respondent of such at least two weeks in advance, by WhatsApp, e-mail, and such other means of communication. Once the children are so brought, they shall be in the custody of the father for a minimum period of 25 days thereof, without any restriction. The place of exchange for this shall be in front of the residential house of the 1st petitioner at Kaloor, Ernakulam, as mentioned in the cause title of this case.

33. Needless to say, should the 1st petitioner return, or be forced to return, to India for any reason, then the afore arrangements would stand modified, enabling the 4th respondent, as long as he is also in India, to see the children every weekend from 10.00 a.m. on Saturdays, till 5.00 p.m. on Sundays. This arrangement, of course, is subject to change as per the consent of the parties, if they are able to so arrive; or through legal processes.

                  This writ petition is thus ordered; but we direct the matter be listed on 16.02.2026, to obtain compliance of the directions to the 4th respondent to produce the passports of the children before this Court.