JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The present peti­tion in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of baby, Vanshika Bansal, aged about 4 years, daughter of the petitioner from the custody of respondent No.2 (Faqir Chand Singla), the maternal grandfather of the child.­ 2. The brief facts that emerge from the pleadings 75 of the parties are that from the wedlock of the pe­titioner and his wife, Bharti Bansal, a daughter, namely, Vanshika was born on 16.8.2008. Unfor­tunately, difference arose between them and the wife started living separately with effect from 24.8.2010. The wife got registered a case against her in-laws bearing FIR No. 45 dated 1.11.2011, against her in-laws under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure, and Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, were also initiated by the wife, Mrs. Bharti Ban­sal. On 15.10.2012, Mrs. Bharti Bansal died un­der mysterious circumstances for which an FIR against her in-laws was registered on 22.10.2012. The proceedings between Ajay Bansal and his parents-in-law Faqir Chand Sing1a and Rajrani Singla are pending before the Guardian Judge, Patiala for granting the custody of the minor daughter. 3. Notice of motion was issued to the respon­dents, who appeared and filed their respective written statements. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 is a bad character and he was in­volved in seven FIRs under the Gambling Act. He argued that the father of the petitioner is a retired SMO, the petitioner is a financially sound person and can maintain the minor daughter. He argued that the maternal family of the minor cannot properly look-after the minor and it is in the welfare and interest of the minor to give custody of the minor to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that this habeas corpus is not, maintainable as proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act are already pending before the Guardian Judge at Patiala. He further argued that the minor child is being looked-after 4 properly in the custody of her maternal parents and that the wish of the child may be ascertained. 6. He further argued that the minor child is being looked-after 4 properly in the custody of her maternal parents and that the wish of the child may be ascertained. 6. Learned State counsel confirmed the fact that the respondent No.2 Fakir Chand Singla, maternal father of the minor was involved in seven FIRs under the Gambling Act, registered against him at Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala but he was acquitted in all those cases. As per information supplied by the State, the following FIRs were registered against him: 1. FIR No. 170 dated 19.7.1986 (acquitted on 6.11.1987); 2. FIR No. 184 dated 18.8.1986 (acquitted on 6.11.1987); 3. FIR No. 205 dated 30.8.1986 (acquitted on 1.2.1988); 4. FIR No.3 dated 7.1.1987 (acquitted on 19.3.1988); 5. FIR No.51 dated 29.4.1988 (acquitted on 12.10.1989); 6. FIR No. 106 dated 9.6.1988 (acquitted on 12.1 0.1989); 7. FIR No. 219 dated 20.5.1990 (acquitted on 11.9.1991). 7. This Court has carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and considered rival contentions of the counsel for the parties. 8. It is worthwhile to mention here that so far as a the above FIRs are concerned, respondent No.2 c has failed to controvert the affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-1, Patiala f by filing any rejoinder. 9. Now this Court will consider as to whether during the pendency of the proceedings under Sec­tion 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, this Court can entertain the habeas corpus petition. 10. For restoration of custody of a minor from a person who according to the personal law is not his legal or natural guardian, ordinarily the rem­edy lies under the Hindu Minority and Guardian­ship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act, as the case may be, and it is only in exceptional cases where the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor can be determined on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for habeas corpus. 11. Hence, it is held that the High Court is compe­tent to decide on rival claims in respect of custody of a minor in the exercise of its jurisdiction in a writ petition for habeas corpus in exceptional cir­cumstances as the powers of this Court under Ar­ticle 226 of the Constitution of India remain unaffected under the Guardian and Wards Act. Hence, it is held that the High Court is compe­tent to decide on rival claims in respect of custody of a minor in the exercise of its jurisdiction in a writ petition for habeas corpus in exceptional cir­cumstances as the powers of this Court under Ar­ticle 226 of the Constitution of India remain unaffected under the Guardian and Wards Act. In this case the facts are admitted by both the parties and the case can be decided on the pleadings of the parties. As the welfare of the minor child is in­volved this Court feels that he question of welfare and interest of the child can be decided in writ ju­risdiction this being a case an exceptional case. No evidence is required to be led on the pleadings of the parties. The objection of the learned coun­sel for respondent No.2 regarding non-maintain­ability of this petition is, therefore, repelled. 12. The minor child has been produced in Court by the respondents. She is of 4-1/2 years age. Her wish would not be relevant, as she cannot understand her future prospectus. 13. Now, this Court will consider the main issue of welfare of the minor child. 14. While considering the question of “welfare of the minors” the right of the father as recognized by law has to be kept in mind and given its due weight, but the primary and paramount consid­eration undoubtedly remains to be the welfare of the minors. The expression “welfare of the mi­nors” though has not been defined, yet undoubt­edly has to be given a very wide meaning. It ought not to be measured monetary terms only or by physical comfort alone. It has many facets, such as, financial, educational, physical, moral, and cultural welfare. In fact, it includes every circum­stance that a wise parent must or out to consider for the well-being of the minors. Due regard must also be given to the career prospects of the infant. 15. Petitioner Ajay Bansal along with his father is present in Court. The petitioner states that he 2 owns and possesses a built up double storey shop-cum-flat, measuring about 410 square feet, opposite Prabhat Puri, Charitable Hospital, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Patiala. The petitioner submits that he undertakes to transfer e’ the ownership of this property in favour of her minor daughter, Ms. Vanishka Bansal, within three weeks. The petitioner states that he 2 owns and possesses a built up double storey shop-cum-flat, measuring about 410 square feet, opposite Prabhat Puri, Charitable Hospital, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Patiala. The petitioner submits that he undertakes to transfer e’ the ownership of this property in favour of her minor daughter, Ms. Vanishka Bansal, within three weeks. Apart from this, he submits that he will deposit the rental income or the amount equal to rental value derived from this property in the Recurring Deposit Account of the minor daughter, in some nationalized bank, which she can withdraw after attaining majority. The father and son undertake to look-after the minor properly, to arrange for her the best education and to care for her good health. 16. The family background of both the families of the minor child i.e. Parents and maternal, is to be weighed cautiously by this Court while deciding the custody of the minor child. 17. Respondent No.2, Faqir Chand Singla, has seven criminal cases at his credit, while the grand-father of the minor child is well-educated, retired SMO and possesses sufficient urban prop­erty. The petitioner is the only son and the family has no other child. The grand-mother of the minor child is also an educated lady. 18. The maternal uncle of the minor child has already a minor daughter to look-after. He and his wife cannot shower so much love and affection upon the minor child than that of grand-parents and father of the minor child. 19. The minor child can get better education un­der the custody of her grand parents and father who are well-educated persons. On the other hand, the maternal grand-father of the minor child is a Kiryana shop-keeper, and may not be able to look-after proper education of the child. 20. The grand-father of the minor child being a retired Government SMO, can better look-after the .health and education of the minor child. 21. Keeping in view the comparative study of the family background of the both the parties, this ­Court feels that they better upbringing and welfare of the minor child will be in the custody of the petitioner than respondent No.2. 22. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, and it is ordered that the custody of the minor child Ms. Vanshika Bansal (date of birth 16.8.2008) be handed over to the petitioner within one month. 23. 22. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, and it is ordered that the custody of the minor child Ms. Vanshika Bansal (date of birth 16.8.2008) be handed over to the petitioner within one month. 23. As the minor child has opened her eyes in the lap of her maternal family, the family members have special attachment with her in the absence of their daughter, so this Court deems proper not to detach the child from her maternal family for­ever. So, they respondent No.2 and his family will have visiting rights to meet the child on every last Sunday from 10:00 AM to 4:00 p.m. The child will also be sent to the maternal home by the petitioner during summer and winter holidays for not less than ten days and three days respectively or any other special occasion, which the con­cerned Guardian Judge deems necessary. The maternal grand parents of the minor child will have a right to get any information about the child from the petitioner about the interest and welfare of the child. The Guardian Judge, Patiala will en­sure that this order is complied with. --------------------- Arun Kumar Goyal v. Payal Aggarwal