D. K. TRIVEDI, J. By means of this petition Smt. Geeta Gupta has sought for the custody of her minor son Ashutosh alias Sonu who admittedly is residing with his father opposite party No. 1 Prabhat Kumar Gupta. 2. It is admitted to both the parties that Smt. Geeta Gupta and Prabhat Kumar are the wife and husband having married on 3rd of February, 1995 and Sonu alias Ashutosh was born out of their wed lock. There has been some dispute be tween the couple and both of them are accusing each other of cruelty. Smt. Geeta Gupta was allegedly turned out of her sasural on 19-1-1998 and Sonu alias Ashutosh was detained by her husband Prabhat Kumar. 3. On 29-3-1998 the S. H. O. Bazar Khala called Smt. Geeta Gupta and Prab hat Kumar to the police station Bazar Khala and handed over the petitioner to Smt. Geeta Gupta. On 30-3-1998 the S. H. O. Bazar Khala again took Sonu from his mother and handed him over to Prab hat Kumar. According to Smt. Geeta Gupta, she runs a P. C. O. and her monthly average income is Rs. 5000/- per month. She claims to be a graduate. It is alleged that Prabhat Kumar is a business man deal ing in whole-sale of mustard. oil. It is al leged by Smt. Geeta Gupta that Prabhat Kumar cannot properly take care of Sonu alias Ashutosh and that the child is being unlawfully detained by his father Prabhat Kumar. A writ of habeas corpus is, there fore, sought to be issued. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Prabhat Kumar. He claims that he is the only son of his parents and Smt. Geeta has been pressing him for separate living. Smt. Geeta went to her maika on 31-7-1995 and thereafter did not come back till the intervention of the police. He denied that he ever demanded any dowry or turned out Smt. Geeta from his house. On 19-l-1998a scene was created by the relatives of Smt. Geeta. Smt. Geeta went with her mother and bhabhi leaving behind Sonu. In spite of all efforts made by Prabhat Kumar, it is alleged that Smt. Geeta did not come back to the house of her husband. 5. Prabhat Kumar filed a case on 30-3-1998 under Section 9 of the Hindu Mar riage Act before the Principal Judge, Fami ly Court. Smt. Geeta went with her mother and bhabhi leaving behind Sonu. In spite of all efforts made by Prabhat Kumar, it is alleged that Smt. Geeta did not come back to the house of her husband. 5. Prabhat Kumar filed a case on 30-3-1998 under Section 9 of the Hindu Mar riage Act before the Principal Judge, Fami ly Court. Prabhat Kumar admitted that he was made to sign on a "tkhreer" on 29- 3-1998 and he handed over the custody of Sonu to Smt. Geeta. It is alleged by op posite party No. 1 that Tulsiram, brother of Smt. Geeta brought back Sonu on 30-3-1998 to his house and gave custody of the child to him and another tahreer was prepared. According to opposite party No. 1 it is not possible for Smt. Geeta to main tain and look-after Ashutosh alias Sonu while he can very well look-after his son. 6. It appears from the record of the case that under order dated 1st May, 1998 Smt. Begum Sabina Kamal Advocate was appointed as counselor to bring about reconciliation between the parties. Smt. Begum Sabina Kamal Advocate made her efforts on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, 1998 and the couple was willing to live together in a separate rented accommodation with their son Sonu. Smt. Geeta, however, made a request to Smt. Begum Sabina Kamal for recording the statement of Prabhat Kumar to provide full protection to Smt. Geeta. 7. On 11th May, 1998 Smt. Geeta stated before this Court that she was not willing for any reconciliation nor was she ever willing because her husband is treat ing her with cruelty and threatening her. Another order was, therefore, passed on 11th May, 1998 for making another effort for reconciliation and the couple was directed to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court on 13th May, 1998. The Principal Judge was directed to bring about the reconciliation between the couple. 8. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, made efforts to bring about the reconciliation. In his report the learned Judge stated that Prabhat Kumar was will ing and expressed that he never harassed or assaulted Smt. Geeta and when she was asked as to when she was beaten, she kept mum. Smt. Geeta gave a written applica tion to the Principal Judge, Family Court that she did not want to live with her hus band. Smt. Geeta gave a written applica tion to the Principal Judge, Family Court that she did not want to live with her hus band. Subsequently efforts were made by Honble Mr. Justice Virendra Saran before whom this case was pending, but the efforts of his Lordship also seems to have failed! Under the orders of the Honble Senior Judge, the case was listed before this Court. 9. 1 have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties at some length. 10. There is no dispute between the parties that Sonu alias Ashutosh is a child of two years. There is also no dispute that the custody of the child was once given by the S. H. O. Bazar Khala on 29-3-1998 to Smt. Geeta Gupta and subsequently on 30-3-1998 the custody of the child was given to Prabhat Kumar. Thus, the child is for the present with his father Prabhat Kumar from 30th March, 1998. 11. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Prabhat Kumar is a natural guardian of the person and property of Sonu alias Ashutosh. Proviso to clause (a) of Section 6, however, provides that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. Learned counsel of Smt. Geeta Gupta contended that in view of this proviso the custody of minor Sonu alias Ashutosh be made over to Smt. Geeta Gupta. I am afraid that this is not the correct interpretation of the proviso. Smt. Geeta Gupta is only ordinarily entitled to the custody of Sonu alias Ashutosh. How ever, in the present case in which there are strained relations between Smt. Geeta and her husband Prabhat Kumar, the term ordinarily cannot be extended to the delivery of the custody of Sonu to his mother as a matter of course. 12. In the present case it has to be seen whether Smt. Geeta Gupta is in a position to maintain the child and whether it will be in the interest of the minor to live with the mother. 12. In the present case it has to be seen whether Smt. Geeta Gupta is in a position to maintain the child and whether it will be in the interest of the minor to live with the mother. It may not be prudent to give a finding with regard to the feasibility of the delivery of the custody of minor or with regard to the welfare of the minor only on the basis of the affidavits of parties particularly when allegations and counter allegations are being made and also when the efforts of the counselor appointed by this Court, Principal Judge of the Family Court and so also an Honble Judge of this Court have failed to bring about recon ciliation between the couple. The matter should be left open for a competent Court of law to take a decision after affording an opportunity to the two contending parties to lead evidence as to who should be en titled to the custody of the minor and decide the matter after keeping in mind the paramount consideration of the wel fare of the minor. 13. It has been urged on behalf of Smt. Geeta Gupta that this Court should record a finding and direct the custody of the minor to be given to her. In these proceed ings it will not be appropriate for this Court to record a finding in this regard. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of Smt. Geeta Gupta on the case of Smt Manju Tiwari v. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1156, wherein the Apex Court directed custody of the child to be given to the mother. It is not known as to what were the circumstan ces of that case and the past history of the couple which weighed with the Court to record such finding. 14. In the present case Geeta Gupta, who is running a P. C. O. will not be in a position to look-after her child as she her self will remain busy in the affairs of the P. C. O. for most of the time and the child will have to be left with her other relatives about whom nothing is known to this Court. Smt. Geeta Gupta has to maintain herself first and for that she has to run the P. C. O. and in these circumstances it may not be feasible for this Court to issue a direction that the custody of the child be given to her. On the other hand, Prabhat Kumar who is living with his own parents, which fact has been the bone of contention between the couple, may look-after the child properly. It seems to me for the present that it would be better if the child continues for the present to remain in the custody of his father, who can better manage the maintenance and upkeep of the child. 15. It may be seen that the custody of the child was once given to the mother after about two months of the separation between the couple but on the very next day i. e. 30th March, 1998 the custody of the child was again made over to Prabhat Kumar. I do not wish to enter into the circumstances under which the two parties got the custody of the child, but. the fact remains that the child can easily be looked after in the joint family of Prabhat Kumar. The authority in question AIR 1990 SC 1156 referred to above, does not confer any advantage whatsoever in the circumstan ces of the case to Smt. Geeta Gupta. 16. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Vinayak Goyal v. Prem Prakash Goyal and others, 1981 Allahabad Law Journal, 752. This authority has only been referred to for the purpose that a writ of habeas corpus is available as a remedy in all cases of deprivation of personal liberty. In the present case, it however, cannot be said that there has been any deprivation of personal liberty to Sonu alias Ashutosh, who is living with his father, who is natural guardian. It may be seen that Prabhat Kumar has all along been ready and willing before the counsellor and the family Court to live even in another accommodation with his wife and child, but that is also not acceptable to his wife Smt. Geeta Gupta. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the custody of the child is without any legal justification. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the custody of the child is without any legal justification. It is open to Smt. Geeta Gupta to initiate proceedings for recovery of the custody of the child and the facts and circumstances of this case are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the case of Vinayak Goyal and no benefit of the said authority can be ex tended to Smt. Geeta Gupta. 17. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Smt. Sunita Malik v. Dharam Veer Singh Malik and another, 1992 Selected Civil Decisions, 52, wherein it has been observed that a writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable to enforce the legal right to the custody of minors. Learned counsel for the opposite parties does not dispute that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable. He, however, urged that it is not a case in which the said writ may be issued because the facts and circumstances of this case do not justify interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 18. Looking into all these cir cumstances of this case, it is evident that it is a case in which no interference is called for and a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued, rather it would be highly unjust to do so. 19. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made by this Court will not affect the rights of the parties if the wife chooses to seek recourse for the cus tody of the child in the competent Court. Writ petition dismissed. .