For 25 years, he lived and worked in the United States. It was there that he got married to a woman whom he had first met online in 2019. The couple went to have twin children. However, soon after the relationship soured, and, following a messy legal battle, he secured divorce and the custody of the twins. Meanwhile, his ex-wife left for India with the children. When the man, now 47, flew to India to secure custody of his twins, he found himself caught in another legal battle — this time over a criminal case registered in Faridabad.The US-based engineer, a Green Card holder employed with HDR Engineering in San Diego, was stopped at Chandigarh International Airport on October 4 after arriving from Dubai. The reason: a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him by the Faridabad Police in connection with an FIR filed by his former wife’s father.The Punjab and Haryana High Court has now ordered the withdrawal of the LOC, questioning the police’s insistence on taking his biometric measurements despite there being no specific order from a Magistrate to do so.In an order dated November 3, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed that insisting on biometrics in such circumstances amounted to “a kind of coercion”, which had already been restrained by a coordinated Bench of the High Court. The court also noted that the petitioner had secured regular bail from the Magistrate in the FIR proceedings and that another petition filed by him seeking the return of his children to the US remained pending before the High Court.The court concluded that there was “no justification for issuing the LOC against the petitioner” and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, to ask the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office to withdraw it within two days. On the DCP’s request for deletion of the LOC, the Bureau of Immigration was directed to facilitate the petitioner’s departure from India.The petitioner had travelled to Chandigarh to pursue habeas corpus proceedings concerning his twin children, who, according to him, are US citizens and were taken to India by their mother while custody proceedings were pending before a US court.His legal troubles, however, began with an FIR registered at Sector 8 police station, Faridabad, on April 21, 2025, under Sections 120-B, 406, 498-A and 506 of the IPC. The LOC was issued on October 1, 2026.Story continues below this adAfter being stopped at the airport, the petitioner, through his counsel, was asked to appear at the Sector 8 police station the following day. He appeared before the police and the DCP, Ballabgarh, on October 5, accompanied by his lawyer, and was released on police bail after identity verification and recording of his statement. He subsequently obtained regular bail from the Magistrate on October 21.Senior Advocate Anil Malhotra, assisted by Ranjit Malhotra and Ankit Malhotra, argued that the LOC was confined to securing the petitioner’s arrest. Once he had appeared before the police and his identity had been established through photographs, signatures and other documents, there was no justification for insisting on biometric measurements without a Magistrate’s order.“LOC can have serious consequences for an individual’s ability to travel, and it is not a finding of guilt,” said Malhotra.The counsel also argued that compelling the petitioner to provide biometric data violated his fundamental right to privacy as recognised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The application of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, in a matrimonial dispute, they contended, was unwarranted.Story continues below this adThe petitioner said he had been cooperating with the Faridabad investigation from the US since 2025. According to his petition, he joined questioning through video conference on August 20 and sent detailed written responses to senior police officers on September 6, requesting that these be made part of the investigation record.He further alleged that when he appeared before the police on October 5, he was made to sign a statement without being allowed to read it and was not provided a copy despite asking for one.Behind the FIR and the LOC is a matrimonial and child-custody dispute that began in the US.The petitioner said he and his former wife met online in 2019 and married under US laws in 2023 after signing a prenuptial agreement providing that their relationship would be governed by US law. Their twin children were born in the US in December 2023 and are US citizens.Story continues below this adHe initiated divorce proceedings in a US court in June 2024, citing irreconcilable differences. His wife filed a counterclaim through a US attorney.According to the petitioner, she subsequently left the US without informing the court and travelled to India with the children in December 2024, without his consent, while custody proceedings were still pending.The US court later granted him temporary sole legal and physical custody of the children, even after the divorce in August 2025.The petitioner has also alleged that his former wife was in criminal contempt of the US court’s orders and that the court had issued a warrant for her arrest.Story continues below this adThe Faridabad FIR, meanwhile, was lodged by his former wife’s father and named the petitioner, his elderly parents in Kanpur and his US-based elder brother. The petitioner has alleged that the case was filed in retaliation for the custody proceedings in the US.Those allegations remain part of the pending proceedings and have not been adjudicated in the habeas corpus case before the High Court.