JUDGMENT 1. - A letter was received by this Court which was written on 2.12.1999 by Smt. Shanti Devi alleging that her husband has died and she has been ousted from her-in-laws house and her three minor children has been kept in illegal custody by her in-laws. 2. This court issued a notice to the Supdt. of Police, Hanumangarh calling upon him to cause production of minors Naresh Kumar, Sona Bai and Veerpal Kaur and inform the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi also. In pursuance of this direction notices were issued fixing the date of hearing on 24.4.2000. On 24.4.2000 a detailed affidavit was furnished by Smt. Shanti Devi along with some documents. Smt. Shanti Devi along with her parents as well as three minor children along with their paternal grand-parents are present in the court. 3. According to the assertions made in the application, the husband of the applicant had died on 14.3.1999. It is also apparent from the averments made in the petition that she was not living with her-in-laws at least since two month prior to the death of her husband who was suffering from Tuber-culosis and her husband and three minor children were living with their grand-parents in their parental house. Presently, we are not examining whether it is a case of petitioner's ouster from in-laws house or a case of voluntary abandonment. Though it has not been disclosed in the additional affidavit furnished on behalf of Smt. Shanti Devi, but on inquiry made from the learned Counsel now appearing for Smt. Shanti Devi; on the basis of other documents furnished along with additional affidavit it was revealed that a criminal complaint was lodged against the father-in-law and mother-in-law for the demand of dowry. It was further revealed that in fact after about 9 years of her marriage, a complaint was lodged for the first time about three days after the death of her husband on 17.3.1999. The allegations made in the complaint is merely in the nature of claiming the items given by the parents of the lady during the course of their marriage which include a bed, Jwellery and other house-hold articles. The claim was laid for all these articles as 'Stree-Dhan' of the applicant. 4. The veracity of assertions made in the complaint is yet to be examined by the appropriate authority. We refrain ourselves from making any comments on merit of the complaint. The claim was laid for all these articles as 'Stree-Dhan' of the applicant. 4. The veracity of assertions made in the complaint is yet to be examined by the appropriate authority. We refrain ourselves from making any comments on merit of the complaint. However, for the present purposes suffice it to state that in the chain of events, this complaint does not support the case of the petitioner about the custody of her minor children with the paternal grand-parents to be illegal and unlawful. 5. In this application it is admitted that the petitioner is living with her parents since four months before the filing of this writ petition. The petitioner had moved another application under Section 97 Criminal Procedure Code alleging illegal confinement of her minor children by her grand-parents. Contrary to her own case, in this application, it was alleged that the children were forcibly taken from her custody on 24.5.1999, the respondents Hardayal Singh and Kartar Kaur snatched the children from her and kept them in the room and the respondents and other members of their family ousted the applicant and her parents from their house. That application was dismissed by the S.D.O. on 26.5.1999 and in those proceedings the grand-parents of the children were examined and they categorically stated that the applicant is residing with her parents for the last about one and half years and she has not visited even at the time of the death of her husband and the children were throughout living with them. Though the statements of children were not recorded, who were minors, but they expressed their desire before the court that they wanted to go along with their paternal grant-parents. The eldest son being six years in age has desired to go along with his paternal grand-parents and all the three children showed the affection to wards their paternal grand-parents and they denied to go along with their mother. 6. In these circumstances, the court found that no offence has been committed by the respondents. 7. However, holding the question of custody of the children will have to be examined under the provisions of the relevant law by appropriate court and within this proceeding, he left the parties to take recourse to appropriate remedies as are available under the Law. 8. 7. However, holding the question of custody of the children will have to be examined under the provisions of the relevant law by appropriate court and within this proceeding, he left the parties to take recourse to appropriate remedies as are available under the Law. 8. That order was not challenged, however, it appears that after the disposal of the complaint under Section 97 Criminal Procedure Code another complaint was lodged against Hardayal Singh and Kartar Kaur under Section 344 Indian Penal Code again alleging that the accused Hardayal Singh and Kartar Kaur have illegally detained the custody of her three minor children. Contrary to her allegation made in the application under Section 97 Criminal Procedure Code about snatching away the children from her custody on 24.4.1999, it was alleged in this application that the minor children are illegally detained by the grand-parents since 15.3.1999 (The next day of death of father of the children). The applicant has alleged the custody of her minor children with their grant-parents to be illegal, after the death of her husband on 14.3.1999. This is to show that she has laid claim to the custody of her children as a natural guardian. This support the claim of grand-parents that children were already living with them along with their father at the time of his death, in ordinary course of abode of any other family. This itself does not lead to any interference with the present custody of minor children. In the social set up of this country residing of minor children with their grand-parents in their paternal house cannot be considered perse to be illegal. 9. While, this application is still said to be pending, another application was further moved in the District Court, Hanumangarh for obtaining the custody of her minor children under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act. That application is also pending. All these proceedings have taken place prior to posting the letter to this court for initiating proceedings for issuing a writ of Habeus Corpus. 10. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner has not disclosed all these facts which had vital bearing on the controversy involved in this case. The petitioner has sought to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by writing a letter by arousing sympathy of the court that she is widowed and is having no assistance from any quarter. 10. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner has not disclosed all these facts which had vital bearing on the controversy involved in this case. The petitioner has sought to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by writing a letter by arousing sympathy of the court that she is widowed and is having no assistance from any quarter. However the reference to all the applications referred to above goes to show that the petitioner is well assisted by legal advise and she is persuing the remedy against her-in-laws as well as to enforce her claim to the custody of minor children through appropriate forum provided under Law and has made an attempt to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, by concealing all these facts, without making any application or affidavit by posting a letter lest she may be found indulging in mis-statement. Had all these facts being disclosed in the first instance, no notice at all would have been issued to respondents and the State. 11. From the narration of facts and allegations made therein, it is apparent that the minor children are living with their grand-parents since before the death of their father on 14.3.1999 and the applicant is not living with her-in-laws since some time before the death of her husband. As a natural consequence thereon the children were residing in their own parental house at the time of their father's death and in these circumstances we do not consider it justifiable to interfere with the custody of minor children before holding appropriate inquiry in interest of minor children. The custody cannot be delivered at this stage to the mother solely on the ground that since the death of her husband she being a natural guardian is entitled to the custody of her minor children. The interest of the children are of paramount consideration in deciding the matters of custody apart from the legal rights to claim custody under the Minority and Guardianship Act, particularly pending enquiry into the allegation that she had left her marital home about a year and half before the death of her husband, who was ailing and children were not also with her. 12. 12. Since the petitioner has already taken recourse to remedies to ventilate her claim to get the custody of her minor children from the grand-parents we leave it to the District Court, Hanumangarh where her application is pending to decide that application as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, after considering the paramount interest of the children. 13. Keeping in view the material placed before us by both the sides, this application as a writ of Habeas Corpus fails and notices are discharged. We refrain from hearing this application and entertain the same as an application under Guardianship and Wards Act or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 in view of pending proceedings before District Court, Hanumangarh.Writ petition dismissed. *******