JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of Master Vansh through his mother on the ground that he is under illegal detention of the opposite parties no.4 to 7. 2. As per the allegations made in the writ petition, the mother of the petitioner Smt. Suman was married to Nirmal Kumar on 21.03.2009 and the petitioner was born on 04.03.2011. The husband of the petitioner's mother is no more and died on 12.04.2015 as a result of heart disease. Since the death of his father, the petitioner is living with the opposite parties no.6 and 7. It has been pleaded in the petition that just after 4th day of the death of Nirmal Kumar, the mother of the petitioner was forcibly evicted from her matrimonial house and the petitioner was illegally detained by the opposite parties. The mother of the petitioner also gave an application to the police on 19.05.2015, but no action was taken. 3. After the counter-affidavit was filed by the opposite parties no.4 and 5, the petitioner impleaded the opposite parties no.6 and 7 because the petitioner was in their custody. The opposite parties no.6 and 7 have also filed their counter-affidavit in which they have stated that soon after the death of her husband, Smt. Suman left her matrimonial home leaving behind his son and started living with one Sunil. The petitioner is comfortably living with his grand mother and is also being looked after by her. Presently, he is aged about five years and it will not be safe for him to live with his mother because Smt. Suman has started living with some one else. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit today in Court and has denied the contents of the counter-affidavit. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly Smt. Suman is the mother and natural guardian of the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of the father of the petitioner, she has a preferential right to get the custody of her son. The opposite party no.6, who is the grand mother of the petitioner, is an aged lady and she has no source of her income. In these circumstances, the custody of the petitioner should be handed over to his mother. The opposite party no.6, who is the grand mother of the petitioner, is an aged lady and she has no source of her income. In these circumstances, the custody of the petitioner should be handed over to his mother. The petitioner is the natural guardian of her son and no one else can take better care of her son. 6. It is a settled law that in the matters of deciding custody of minor children, the paramount consideration for the court is to consider the welfare of the minor. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the welfare of the minor should be paramount consideration irrespective of the fact as to who is entitled to the custody of the minor. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that by the order dated 09.06.2015, this Court had directed the police to produce the petitioner before this Court. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner Master Vansh was produced before this Court on 12.06.2015 and in reply to the queries made by the Court, he expressed his desire to live with his grand mother instead of living with his mother. There is an allegation that the mother of the petitioner has started living with some other person. The petitioner is comfortably living with grand mother and it has not been shown by the petitioner as to how the custody of the petitioner is not safe with his grand mother. Moreover, there are allegations and counter-affidavit allegations between the parties against each other and this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot inter into the disputed questions of fact. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforesaid facts that the petitioner himself wants to live with his grand mother and the mother of the petitioner is allegedly living with some one else and this Court is not competent to decide the complicated disputed questions of title, I do not find any sufficient ground to change the custody of the petitioner at this stage. 9. In view of the above, this habeas corpus petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the mother of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the Gordian and Wards Act for seeking custody of the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this habeas corpus petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the mother of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the Gordian and Wards Act for seeking custody of the petitioner. It is further provided that the mother of the petitioner shall have liberty to visit the house where the petitioner is living and the opposite party no.6 who is grand mother of the petitioner shall permit Smt. Suman to meet her son as and when, she desires.