Judgment ( 1. ) IN this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has prayed for production of corpus of Piyush Tiwari, her son who is in custody of the fifth respondent herein. ( 2. ) THE facts as have been exposited are that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 was solemnized on 08. 12. 01. In the wedlock, a daughter and a son were born. It is alleged that due to ill treatment by the fifth respondent, the petitioner was compelled to live separately and file an application for grant of maintenance to her and two children. The respondent no. 5 was paying maintenance of Rs. 1200/- to them. On one occasion, the husband respondent came to the house of the petitioner and took away the child, Piyush, from her custody. She lodged a complaint on 27. 6. 08 at Police Station Kotwali but no action was taken. Thereafter, she moved an application before the mahila Thana, Sagar on 12. 12. 08 and sought appropriate action to be taken for bringing back her son. Despite the same, the police authorities have not taken any action. It is contended that respondent no. 5 has illegally detained the minor child and she has a legal right to guardianship and hence the respondent no. 5 should be directed to produce the child before this Court and a direction should be issued for child to be handed over to her. ( 3. ) WE have heard Mr. S. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4. ( 4. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate that if the complaint put forth by the petitioner is appositely studied, it will reflect a case relating to cavil pertaining to the guardianship of the child who is aged about 4 years. ( 5. ) ON a scrutiny of the allegations made in the petition and the FIR, we are of the considered opinion that nothing has been pointed out how the respondent no. 5 has illegally detained the son. That apart, in ordinary course of things such a Habeas Corpus petition should not be entertained. ( 5. ) ON a scrutiny of the allegations made in the petition and the FIR, we are of the considered opinion that nothing has been pointed out how the respondent no. 5 has illegally detained the son. That apart, in ordinary course of things such a Habeas Corpus petition should not be entertained. If the petitioner has a grievance with regard to the custody or any allegation made against her husband, it should be threshed out before the appropriate legal forum under the guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In a Habeas corpus petition, as we perceive, it will be difficult especially in a case of this nature where except bald statement nothing has been stated to grant any kind of relief to the petitioner. ( 6. ) IN view of the aforesaid, while declining to interfere in this writ petition, we observe that it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as provided under law relating to custody of the child. If such an application is filed the appropriate legal forum shall deal with the same keeping in view the parameters of law in that regard. ( 7. ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of.