JUDGMENT P. Dayal,, J. - The dispute in this Writ petition is regarding the custody of Mohammad Arshad, aged about two years. Mohammad Arshad is in the custody of opposite party No. 1 Mohammad Azhar who is his father. 2. Smt. Salma Bano filed this petition praying for custody of Mohammad Arshad and for directing the opposite parties to deliver the child to her. 3. Smt. Salma Bano was married to the opposite party No. 1 Mohammad Azhar on 10682. She claimed that she was deserted by her husband in June, 1983 and that Mohammad Arshad was born of their wed: lock. She was asked to return back on 23rd March, 1985. She moved an application to the District Magistrate on 5885 for help and then presented the present writ petition on 31085. 4. Affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case. The opposite party Not 1 moved an application which was prepared on 1186 for summoning the original register of 'nikahnama' at his expanse and for sending the 'nikahnama' for comparison with the signatures of the petitioner Smt. Salma Bano by the Government expert with a view to showing that the 'nikahnama' was not signed by him. 5. The photostate copy of the 'nikahnama' is Annexure3 of the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that this deed be ignored for the present as her case is made out from other documents. 6. The petitioner filed a photostate copy of the birthregister vide Annexure4 wherein the date of birth of the minor Mohammad Arshad is shown as 181083 and the date of registration is shown as 221185 while the opposite party No. 1 filed a certificate of the date of birth vide Annexure1 of his counter affidavit which shows that the minor Mohammad Arshad was born in Basant Ganj on 28483. Thus there has been a dispute regarding the date of birth of Mohammad Arshad also and the opposite party claims that this certificate of birth vide Annexure4 was also forged by the petitioner like the 'nikahnama . About this Annexure4 also learned counsel (sic) for the purpose of deciding this case. 7. Thus there has been a dispute regarding the date of birth of Mohammad Arshad also and the opposite party claims that this certificate of birth vide Annexure4 was also forged by the petitioner like the 'nikahnama . About this Annexure4 also learned counsel (sic) for the purpose of deciding this case. 7. The petitioner relied on a copy of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 242 of 1985 vide Annexure5 which plaint purports to have been filed by Mohammad Azhar and Mohammad Arshad against Smt. Salma Bano in the Court of Munsif Dalmau, district RaeBareli. The opposite party No. 1 claimed that this plaint is also forged and it was not signed by him. In Para 1 of this plaint vide Annexure5 it was pleaded that the parties were married on 19682 and that a son was born to them on 28483. On this basis learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the minor Mohd. Arshad was born of the wedlock of Smt. Salma Bano and the opposite party No. 1 Mohammad Azhar and that the child being below seven years of age should remain in the custody of the mother. 8. He referred to the affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 which has been moved on 20186 wherein it has been averred that the 'nikahnama' and the birth certificate, vide Annexure3 and 4, as aforesaid, are forged and the learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that no mention of the Annexures5 and 6 being forged has been made in this affidavit. But this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force because the application has been moved today with the specific prayer for comparison of signatures on 'nikahnama' and there was no occasion for pleading in this application and the affidavit attached thereto, about the forgery of plaint and injunction application vide Annexures 5 and 6 of the rejoinder affidavit. It is worth considering in this case that the Annexures3 to 7 were not filed with the petition and they were filed alter the counter affidavit of the opposite party no. I was filed. In annexure5 the date of birth of Mohammad Arshad is mentioned as 2841983 while the petitioner claimed it. to be 18111983 which fact shows that the petitioner, in case he relied on annexure5, did not mention the correct date of birth of Mohammad Arshad in his petition. I was filed. In annexure5 the date of birth of Mohammad Arshad is mentioned as 2841983 while the petitioner claimed it. to be 18111983 which fact shows that the petitioner, in case he relied on annexure5, did not mention the correct date of birth of Mohammad Arshad in his petition. The annexure1 of counter affidavit of opposite party no. 1 shows that Mohammad Arshad was born on 2841983 and the information of birth was given on 251983 i.e after about four days. While the birth certificate vide annexure4 relied on by the petitioner shows that the registration of birth had taken place after about two years. 9. Another point that was argued in this petition was that the welfare of the minor has to be seen and that the opposite party no. 1 has been drawing salary of about Rs. 1500 per month. 10. There is dispute between the parties in this writ petition about the divorce also. 11. Thus the parties are at variance on the point of date of birth of Mohammad Arshad. on point of divorce and on the point of motherhood. 12. The petitioner relied on the case of Smt. Fakhrunnisa v. Qamar Ahmad (1980 LLJ 237 in which case it was held that the mother is entitled to the custody of a male child upto the age of seven years. But this case was distinguished in the case of Aftab Parvez @ Saif Habeeb v. Shahabuddin ( 1983 LLJ 201 ) and it was subsequently held that in view of the serious dispute on facts between the parties jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not necessarily be exercised and the factual controversy can better be gone into in the proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act. 13. Reliance was placed on the case of Iqbal Ahmad v. Shaban Ali Khan (1985 ALR 526) in which case the custody of child with the father was ordered in the best interest of the child. 14. It is thus obvious that there is serious dispute between the parties on material facts in this case which disputes cannot be resolved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of. India. The matter of custody has to be decided on the basis of the welfare of the minor. All these questions can better be decided in proceeding under the Guardian and Wards Act. 15. India. The matter of custody has to be decided on the basis of the welfare of the minor. All these questions can better be decided in proceeding under the Guardian and Wards Act. 15. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Petition dismissed)