Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Amrita Rani Luthra, permanently residing in California (USA) through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the production and release of the alleged detenus, namely, Erika Luthra (daughter of the petitioner) and Royan Luthra (son of the petitioner) from the alleged illegal custody of Shri Mahesh Chander Luthra, uncle of the minor children and for issuance of a roving writ appointing a Warrant Officer to search for the alleged detenus from any premises which may be pointed out by the petitioner. 2. Pursuant to notice issued, respondent No. 2 has entered defence and children too again pursuant to the orders passed by this Court have made themselves available. 3. Before I might proceed any further in this case, I would like to mention that before hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I had a detailed discussion with the two minor children as also the petitioner, mother of the minor children, in my chamber. 4. A short reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 has also been filed in Court today which is permitted to be placed on record. Copy of the reply has been given to the counsel for the petitioner. 5. It has, inter alia, been pleaded in the petition that minors are being kept in illegal custody by respondent No. 2 who is younger brother of the petitioners deceased husband Tarinder Pal Luthra with the help of respondent No. 1 Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar. The daughter of the petitioner was born on 8th of October, 1983 whereas the son was born on 30th of July, 1985 out of the wedlock of the petitioner with Tarinder Pal Luthra. It is then pleaded that the petitioner, her husband and children migrated to USA in September, 1990 and till late 1991 were happily living in USA. Shri Tarinder Pal Luthras mother who lived at Amritsar got some serious medical problem and on knowing about it, petitioners husband returned to India with children as he wanted the children to meet their grand-mother. However, after coming back from USA, the petitioners only last contact with the husband and children was through telephone. Shri Tarinder Pal Luthras mother who lived at Amritsar got some serious medical problem and on knowing about it, petitioners husband returned to India with children as he wanted the children to meet their grand-mother. However, after coming back from USA, the petitioners only last contact with the husband and children was through telephone. In the month of July, 1999, the husband of the petitioner was murdered at Amritsar and it is the case of the petitioner that no information was sent to her by her in-laws and she came to know about it from some relatives who are staying at Amritsar. The petitioner and her brothers came to India for condolence and for taking custody of children. Respondent No. 2 not only misbehaved with her brothers but with the help of local police got a false criminal case registered against them. Now the petitioner has come to India on 12th of June, 2000 to meet and take custody of her children. On 16th/17th of June, 2000 when the petitioner went to Amritsar, respondent No. 2 refused her to meet the children. He not only refused to reveal their place of residence but with the help of respondent No. 1 threatened her that he would not only get her involved in some criminal case but would also physically eliminate her. Petitioner claims herself to be natural and legal guardian of her minor children and, thus, entitled to seek their custody, who are said to have been detained by respondent No. 2, who, it is stated, has no, legal right to keep the children in his custody. 6. In the reply that has been filed by respondent No. 1 it is pleaded that Shri Tarinder Pal Luthra married Smt. Amita Rani petitioner (who has named herself as Amrita Rani) on 6th of December, 1982 and from this wedlock a baby daughter, namely, Radhika Luthra was born on 8th of October, 1983 and a male child, namely Rajan was born on 30th of July, 1985. The first child was born at Jalandhar and the second was born at Amritsar. As the parents of Smt. Amita Rani were living abroad, brother of the respondent was pressurised to go abroad and both of the them went abroad on 10th of September, 1990 along with the children. The first child was born at Jalandhar and the second was born at Amritsar. As the parents of Smt. Amita Rani were living abroad, brother of the respondent was pressurised to go abroad and both of the them went abroad on 10th of September, 1990 along with the children. It is then pleaded that Smt. Amita Rani was accustomed to very fast life and the parties could not pull on together with the result that brother of respondent No. 2 came to India with his two children on 5th of February, 1991 and at that time brother of respondent No. 2 was mentally wrecked due to mental cruelty and unbecoming behaviour of his wife. In October, 1991, when petitioner came to India with her brother and tried to kidnap the children with the help of a bad character from the house of the brother of respondent No. 2, he (brother of respondent No. 2) filed a suit for permanent injunction at Amritsar praying therein that custody of the children may not be taken by Smt. Amita Rani forcibly. The matter was compromised between the parties and Amita Rani made a statement in the Court that she would live with her husband and the kids. Amita Rani, however, lived with the brother of respondent No. 2 for a few days and then left India alone, leaving the two children with the respondents brother. Shri Tarinder Pal Luthra, brother of the respondent No. 2 was murdered by his shop Assistant on 1st of July, 1999 and in this regard a case was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Smt. Indra Wati, grand-mother of the minor children is of 75 years and alive. It is a joint family and the two minor children are being looked after and brought up with due love and affection by the grand-mother and other members of the family. At present Radhika is the student of 10+1 class in Alexandra Sr. Sec. School (Girls), Amritsar, which is a school of repute whereas Rajan is a student of 10th Class in P.B.N. School, Amritsar. It is further pleaded that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Rather she has tried to mislead this Court/and has intentionally withheld the information that she was married even before she got married with Tarinder Pal Luthra. It is further pleaded that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Rather she has tried to mislead this Court/and has intentionally withheld the information that she was married even before she got married with Tarinder Pal Luthra. She was already married to one Babbar of Jalandhar and a male child was also born from the said wedlock. Mr Munish Babbar is about 20 years and is living with the real sister of the petitioner in USA. The petitioner applied for dissolution of marriage in Court in USA in the year 1996. Husband of the petitioner received summons from the Second Judicial District Court, USA. Summons were served upon the husband of the petitioner but he had no means to contest the petition in USA and consequently the marriage between the petitioner and husband was dissolved by the USA court in January, 1997. "After taking divorce from her husband, the petitioner is stated to have married third time with one Mr. Manvir S. Pawar. The other allegations made in the petition have also been refuted." 7. As mentioned above, I had a detailed talk with the children as also the petitioner. Minor children, Erika Luthra and Royan Luthra are of the age of discretion. It is quite apparent from their conversation that they are happily and willingly living with their grand-mother. Not only that, they do not appear to be keen at all to live with their mother, who, they state has remarried after divorce and has not bothered to look after them for a decade. They appear to have no love lost for their mother. 8. The story put forward by respondent No. 2 has been contradicted with equal vehemence by the petitioner and it has been argued by her counsel that persistent efforts were made by her to contact her children on telephone or otherwise which, however, proved abortive due to non-co-operative attitude of respondent No. 2 as also because of influence that respondent No. 2 and other uncles and grand-parents of the children exert with those who run the administration at Amritsar. 9. Be that as it may, this is a petition for Habeas Corpus wherein the sole consideration is to find out as to whether the alleged detenus are, in fact and reality, in illegal custody of respondents. 9. Be that as it may, this is a petition for Habeas Corpus wherein the sole consideration is to find out as to whether the alleged detenus are, in fact and reality, in illegal custody of respondents. As mentioned above, the children are living happily and of then own volition with their uncles and grand-mother. That being so, no occasion at all arises to interfere in the matter and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. However, the petitioner, who is a natural guardian of the minors, cannot be denied the right at least to meet the children. If she is allowed to meet the children, their attitude towards her may change and they may ultimately be able to weigh pros and cons to know their welfare, which is of paramount consideration in such like matters. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court, thus orders that as long as the petitioner is in India, she be permitted to meet the children till such time they attain majority for two hours in a week. For that purpose, however, she shall have to go to Amritsar and grand-mother of the children as also respondent No. 2 would ensure that she is given custody of the children for the time, mentioned above. For the purpose aforesaid, the children shall be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar at 10.00 AM every Saturday till such time, of course, the petitioner is in India and wants to meet the children. The children shall be left in the custody of the mother, petitioner herein, for two hours. The children shall be produced in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for the first time on July 8, 2000. As and when petitioner might leave for California (USA), she shall give an intimation in this regard to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, in writing. Disposed of accordingly.