JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J. 1. This is a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the production and custody of her infant son from the alleged unlawful custody of the infant's father. 2. It is not in controversy that respondent No. I Gopal Prasad and petitioner Dropti Bai are husband and wife and that 3 children were born of their union. The eldest child was Ashish Kumar, who is dead. The second child is named Satish Kumar, aged about 7 years. The youngest child is a daughter by name Sonam, whose age is not given in the petition, but was stated to be about 3 years in the course of arguments advanced before this Court. It is also not in controversy that petitioner Dropti Bai is living away from her husband, in her maternal house for the past some years. The daughter Sonam is also living with the mother. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was assulted and turned out of matrimonial home by her husband, respondent No. 1 Gopal Prasad, on 22/6/1981. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 snatched the son Satish Kumar from the custody of the petitioner on 28.2.81 about which a report was made by the petitioner at Ghamapur Police Station on 1.7.81 vide Ex. P-2. It may be stated here that the date of alleged snatching is wrongly mentioned in the petition as 28.2.89, which makes no sense since it is also averred that the report complaining about the alleged snatching was made, as already stated, on 1.7.81. It is also the case of the petitioner that the elder son Ashish Kumar died in the custody of respondent No. 1 due to neurosis and brain fever for want of proper care and treatment. Respondent No. 1 is also not paying proper heed and attention for nourishment and feeding of son Satish Kumar. As such the life and future of Satish Kumar is in danger Respondent No. 1 is also keeping a concubine and for that reason also the treatment of respondent No. 1 with his son Satish Kumar is cruel. Satish Kumar is also ill and no proper treatment is being provided to him by respondent No. 1. There is imminent danger to his life. Satish Kumar is also ill and no proper treatment is being provided to him by respondent No. 1. There is imminent danger to his life. In these circumstances, it is prayed in the petition that custody of the infant son Satish Kumar may be directed to be given to the petitioner-mother. 4. The respondent No. 1/husband opposed the petition and in his return pleaded that the petitioner herself deserted him and also left the infant son Satish Kumar on 27.4.89. The story that he had snatched the son Satish Kumar from the custody of the petitioner was absolutely false. The eldest son Ashish Kumar unfortunately died of typhoid. It was wrong that he died because of want of proper care and treatment. The son Satish Kumar was born on 3.4.83 and is thus aged more than 7 years. He is in class IV in Sandip Vidya Kunj, Lalmati, Jabalpur. He is being properly cared and looked after by respondent No. 1 and the latter's parents and brothers who are living with him. Respondent No. 1 is an employee in Ordnance Factory Khamariya and is earning a salary of more than Rs. 1000 per month. He is in a position to properly look after and meet all necessary needs of his son Satish Kumar. It is false that respondent No. 1 has kept any concubine. The petitioner is a misguided woman and has no financial means to support and maintain the son Satish Kumar. The welfare of Satish Kumar lies only in the hands of respondent No. 1. 5. The petitioner has filed a copy of the report made to the police dated 1.7.81 (Annexure P-2) and another report dated 9.1.91 (Annexure P-3). These are said to be the reports which the petitioner is send to have made complaining about alleged snatching of the child. When the first report dated 1.7.81 was lodged, son Satish Kumar was not even born. That report could, therefore, relate only to the eldest son Ashish Kumar, who is dead. The second report (Annexure P-3) only states that the petitioner's husband has kept another woman and that the petitioner wants back her son and also wants maintenance from her husband. There is not even a whisper in that report about the alleged snatching. It is proper to believe the affidavit of respondent No, 1 Gopal Prasad that the petitioner herself left son Satish Kumar with him. There is not even a whisper in that report about the alleged snatching. It is proper to believe the affidavit of respondent No, 1 Gopal Prasad that the petitioner herself left son Satish Kumar with him. 6. The question whether respondent No. 1 is Keeping a concubine is a matter on which there is a serious controversy between the parties. It Is a disputed question of fact which cannot be properly decided in this proceeding. It is open to the petitioner to institute civil proceeding to secure custody of the child Satish Kumar, wherein the question about keeping of concubine by respondent No. 1 may be properly investigated. 7. In the present proceeding, the paramount consideration in deciding about the custody of the child is the welfare of the child. The petitioner is admittedly living in destitution and poverty. She is unable to maintain herself and on that basis intends to institute proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against respondent No. 1. When she is unable to maintain herself, it will be most improper to burden her more by giving custody of son Satish Kumar to her. The son Satish Kumar was produced before this Court by respondent No. 1. We interrogated Satish Kumar at that time. He was .not even prepared to recognise his mother i.e. the petitioner. He appeared to be in good health. 8. Respondent No. 1 Gopal Prasad is an employee in Ordnance Factory, Khamariya and as per copy of the pay slip (Annexure NA-6), his net salary is Rs. 1148.25. The son Satish Kumar is studying in class IV. Expenses for proper upbrining and education of Satish Kumar are necessary which can be properly met only by respondent No. 1 who is none but father of Satish Kumar and who has been also looking after the child. In these circumstances the welfare of Satish Kumar dictates that he should be allowed to continue in the custody and guardianship of his father, respondent No. 1. It will be however proper to give some directions to enable the petitioner who is mother to have the company of her son Satish Kumar to meet psychological needs of both. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition for habeas corpus is dismissed. It will be however proper to give some directions to enable the petitioner who is mother to have the company of her son Satish Kumar to meet psychological needs of both. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition for habeas corpus is dismissed. We however direct that respondent No. 1 Gopal Prasad shall take the son Ex Satish Kumar to petitioner Smt. Dropadi Bai where she may be living and entrust Satish Kumar to her exclusive custody for 3 hours between 1.00 p.m. and 4,00 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month, until further orders. We hope that both the parties shall faithfully adhere to this arrangement until otherwise directed.