Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The prayer in this petition is, for a direction to fourth respondent, to cause production of the body and person of Darrius Samuel John, minor, aged about three years, who is now under the illegal custody of first respondent, who is residing at Muscat, Sultante of Oman. 2. According to the petitioner, she was married to John Samuel Jayachandran, first respondent herein, on 24.08.2001. On 21.04.2002, she gave birth to a male child, who was named as Darrius Samuel John. Her husband/first respondent got a job in a Government Hospital at Muscat and left India in January, 2003 and, thereafter, he came to India on 12.01.2005, for attending his relative's marriage. When her mother asked her mother-in-law as to when she would be taken to Muscat, her mother-in-law told that there was no chance of her joining with the husband. On 02.02.2005, when she woke up from the bed, she was shocked to see that her child was missing. She came to know that her mother-in-law and husband took the child to a hospital, saying that she had administered poison to the child and also taken sleeping tablets, for committing suicide. Sometime later, she came to know, that on 10.03.2005, her husband had left to Muscat, along with the child. Hence, she has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition, to direct the first respondent, who is at Muscat, to produce the child. 3. When this matter had come up before this Court on 29.03.2005, we questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether this Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable, when the child is in the custody of father, who is at Muscat. With regard to that, the learned counsel wanted time to produce some citations. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned. Again, when the matter came up for hearing on 06.04.2005, the learned counsel would cite AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1625 (MOHD.IKRAM HUSSAIN V. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS); AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 2684 (KANU SANYAL V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARJEELING, AND OTHERS) and AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 792 (VEENA KAPOOR V. VARINDER KUMAR). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the citations. 5. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the citations. 5. In AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1625, the Supreme Court ordered in a Habeas Corpus Petition to release the petitioner's wife from the unlawful detention of her father and for delivery of the said wife to the petitioner. This order was made on the basis of the finding that the wife of the petitioner, a major, was unlawfully detained by her father, against her will. 6. In AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 2684, a question was considered, as to whether under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the production of the body of the person, alleged to be unlawfully detained, is an essence, before the application for a writ of habeas corpus can be finally heard and disposed of by the Court. As such, the issue relates to the power of the Supreme Court, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, to give a direction to produce the body of the person, unlawfully detained. 7. The other decision in AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 792 would show, that there is an observation, that in matters regarding the custody of the minor child, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor child and not the legal right of this or that particular party. 8. Thus, all the above decisions would not go into the question raised by this Court, with reference to the maintainability of the petition. On the other hand, even according to the petitioner, allegations were levelled against her by her husband and in-laws that she attempted to kill the child by administering poison and to commit suicide. Hence, the child was taken by the husband of the petitioner to Muscat, in order to save the child from the hands of the petitioner. 9. Under those circumstances, especially when there is no material to show that the child is in unlawful detention of the husband and that the said unlawful detention of the child by the husband is within the jurisdiction of this Court, we cannot entertain this H.C.P. 10. Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. H.C.P.No.340 OF 2005 M.K.V., J. & C.N., J. The case is posted "for being mentioned" today. Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. H.C.P.No.340 OF 2005 M.K.V., J. & C.N., J. The case is posted "for being mentioned" today. As requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order, dated 08.04.2005, would not affect the right of the petitioner to approach the forum under the Guardian and Wards Act. Hence, the forum under the Guardian and Wards Act would pass orders on merits, uninfluenced in any way by the observations made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order dated 08.04.2005.