JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- In her petition filed under Sections 6 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the petitioner, who is mother of Japbir Singh, aged about 6 years, had prayed for grant of his custody, who, according to her, was staying with respondents No.1 and 2. In their written statement filed by them before the Guardian Judge, respondents No.1 and 2, who are grand father and grand mother, respectively of the minor child, had averred that the child was taken away from the school by his father Harminder Singh and, therefore, the child was not in their custody. On 11.6.2011, the petitioner learnt through her relatives that the minor child was kept/detained in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh by his grand mother, i.e. respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, due to the unlawful custody of the minor child in the hands of respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3, who is their son and uncle of the minor child, his life was in danger. Moreover, respondents No.1 to 3 were not sending the minor child to the school or allowing him to play with children of his age. Accordingly, she filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the minor child be released from room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh where he was being kept in illegal detention. 2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had produced photocopy of admission form dated 23.2.2011 said to have been filled in and signed by respondent No.1 when he got admitted the minor child in class-II in Stepping Stones Senior Secondary School, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. Accordingly, it was submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 had intentionally taken incorrect stand before the Guardian Judge that they were not having the custody of the child so as to defeat the petition filed by the petitioner. At the same time, they continued to keep the minor child with them and at that point of time detained him in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. 3. At the same time, they continued to keep the minor child with them and at that point of time detained him in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. 3. Considering the allegations levelled in the petition and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court had issued notice of motion for today and a Warrant Officer was also appointed to accompany the petitioner to Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh so as to search for the minor child. In case he was to be found present there, the Warrant Officer was to record his statement and require the person present with the minor child to produce him before this Court. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 14.6.2011, respondents No.1 and 2 have come present in person and have also produced Japbir Singh, minor child. Respondent No.3 has also come present in person though no notice had been issued to him. Similarly, Shri Anil Kumar Puri, Junior Assistant, Panchayat Bhawan has put in appearance in person on behalf of respondent No.6. The Warrant Officer has also submitted his report, which is quoted here-in-below:- “Having been appointed as Warrant Officer, I alongwith Smt. Ravinder Saini, mother of the detenu reached the Police Station, Sector-19, Chandigarh at 05.05 p.m., on 14.6.2011. Shri Janak Rana, SHO, SI Sh. Sucha Singh, HC Sh. Dharam Dev and Sh. Raj Singh, Head Constable were found present in the said Police Station. I requested Sh. Janak Rana, SHO to depute some Police Officers with me to record the statement of detenu, namely, Japbir Singh. He deputed with me Sh.Sucha Singh, SI and Head Constable Sh. Dharam Dev. I alongwith Smt.Ravinder Saini, mother of the detenu alongwith above mentioned Police Officers raided room No. 119 in Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh, where detenu Japbir Singh alongwith his grand mother and grand father were found present in the above mentioned room. Then I recorded the statement of detenu namely Japbir Singh and he stated that Smt. Ravinder Saini is his mother but detenu namely, Japbir Singh refused to come alongwith his mother. Then I requested to the deputed Police Officers and detenu’s grand father and grand mother to produce the detenu in the Hon’ble Court on 15.6.2011. Statement of detenu’s grand father and grand mother was recorded separately, where they stated that the detenu namely Japbir Singh will be produced in the Hon’ble Court on 15.6.2011. Then I requested to the deputed Police Officers and detenu’s grand father and grand mother to produce the detenu in the Hon’ble Court on 15.6.2011. Statement of detenu’s grand father and grand mother was recorded separately, where they stated that the detenu namely Japbir Singh will be produced in the Hon’ble Court on 15.6.2011. Copy of recorded statement of detenu namely Japbir Singh is annexed at ‘R1’ and statement of detenu’s grand father and grand mother is annexed at ‘R2’. Entry in this regard was made in the Daily Diary Register at Serial No. 45 dated 14.6.2011. Summons of respondents No.1, 2 and 6 were duly served.” Alongwith his report, the Warrant Officer has appended statement given in writing by respondent No.1, which was also signed by respondent No.2. In the said statement, respondent No.1 stated that for the last six days, he, alongwith his wife Gian Kaur and their minor grand-son Japbir Singh was staying in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. His grand son was fit and fine. However, he was resisting to accompany the petitioner, who had come alongwith the Warrant Officer. Respondent No.1 further assured that he, alongwith his wife, would produce the child before the Court on 15.6.2011 and in the event of his not doing so, appropriate action may be taken against him. 5. On being confronted with the aforementioned material, respondent No.1 states that he had not kept the minor child in Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. In fact the minor child was kept there by respondent No.3, who is uncle of the minor child, as the father of the minor child is away and said respondent No.3 is looking after the interest and welfare of the minor child. He has specifically denied that he had kept the child in Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. According to him, he alongwith his wife Gian Kaur was summoned from their house in Sector 20, Chandigarh by the Warrant Officer, who made him to give his statement in writing. 6. A perusal of the statement of respondent No.1, which he had himself given in writing before the Warrant Officer on 14.6.2011 in Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh would reveal that both respondents No.1 and 2 had been staying with the child there for the last six days. He did not state that the child was kept by his uncle at that place. He did not state that the child was kept by his uncle at that place. He also did not state that he alongwith his wife had been summoned from their house in Sector 20, Chandigarh. Moreover, the Warrant Officer had also noticed that when he reached in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh, he found the minor child alongwith his grand mother and grand father present there. The stand of respondent No.1 that the child was kept in the Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh by his uncle- respondent No.3 is belied from the copy of form/receipt No. 7402 issued by Panchayat Bhawan on 7.6.2011, which indicates that room No. 119 was booked in the name of Daljit Singh, Gian Kaur and Japbir Singh. The said form/receipt bears the signatures of Daljit Singh-respondent No.1. It may be worthwhile to mention here that on the reverse side of receipt No. 7402, photo impression of the driving licence of respondent No.1 stands imprinted, which further establishes the fact that it was respondent No.1, who, alongwith his wife Gian Kaur, had kept the minor child in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. Copy of visitors’ register maintained in the Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh further shows that room No. 119 was booked in the name of Daljit Singh and Gian Kaur on 7.6.2011 vide registration No. 1952 and an amount of Rs.1800/- deposited vide receipt No. 7402. The copies of aforementioned receipt and the entries maintained in the visitors’ register duly attested by Manager, Panchayat Bhawan (UT), Sector-18, Chandigarh, which have been produced by Sh. Anil Kumar Puri, Junior Assistant, Panchayat Bhawan, are taken on record as marks ‘A’ and ‘B’, respectively. 7. When confronted with the above material, respondent No.1 has stated that he had neither filled in nor signed the admission form when Japbir Singh was admitted in Stepping Stones Senior Secondary School, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh in February, 2011. However, even a cursory look at the signatures made by the person on the admission form dated 23.2.2011 prima facie indicates that it was respondent No.1, who had filled in and signed the admission form. However, even a cursory look at the signatures made by the person on the admission form dated 23.2.2011 prima facie indicates that it was respondent No.1, who had filled in and signed the admission form. When the admitted signatures of respondent No.1 appearing on the power of attorney executed by him in favour of his counsel Shri Aditya Kumar Sharma are compared with the signatrures of the person, who had signed the admission form, the Court is prima facie of the view that the signatures found on the admission form are of respondent No.1. 8. It is apparent that respondents No.1 and 2 are coming with one lame excuse or the other to defeat the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act. While filing their reply, they denied that the minor child was with them, as according to them, he was taken away from the school by his father, i.e. Harminder Singh. Even in the Court, during the hearing of the present petition, they have denied that they were present alongwith the child at the time of the visit of the Warrant Officer. However, the aforementioned material is sufficient to prima facie hold that the child was kept by respondents No.1 and 2 in room No. 119, Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-18, Chandigarh. 9. The petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act is stated to be fixed for 22.7.2011 before the Guardian Judge, Chandigarh for consideration of two applications, i.e. one for impleading Harminder Singh, father of the child, as a party and the other for seeking interim custody of the child, both filed by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to comment upon the merits or otherwise of the petition under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act as well as the two applications. The decision of the Guardian Judge on the two applications filed by the petitioner as well as the main petition under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act would be based upon the material/evidence before the said Court. 10. The decision of the Guardian Judge on the two applications filed by the petitioner as well as the main petition under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act would be based upon the material/evidence before the said Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are likely to send the minor child to a foreign country either themselves or hand over the child to his father, who is likely to return from some foreign country, who would then take the child with him to a foreign land. However, respondents No.1 and 2 have assured the Court that during the pendency of the petition under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act neither they would send the minor child of the petitioner to a foreign country nor allow their son Harminder Singh to take him out of the country. 11. Respondents No.1 and 2, being grand father and grand mother, respectively of the minor child, it cannot be said that minor child is in their illegal custody. Therefore, they can continue to have the custody of the child till the time, the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody is decided in her favour or the main petition under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act decided in her favour. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Guardian Judge is directed to consider and dispose of the two applications filed by the petitioner on or before August 30, 2011 and the main petition under Sections 6 and 13 of the Act by October 29, 2011. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. --------------