ORDER : Instant petition has been filed by a widow lady claiming custody of her three minor children, details of which she has referred to in para-1 of the petition. 2. Ordinarily, in the absence of husband, mother is the natural guardian of the minor children and custody has to be with her but in the given facts & circumstances which have been brought to our notice, does not deserve indulgence of the fact being prayed and custody with the paternal uncle of three minor children can be said to be illegal custody has to be examined by us in the present matter. 3. The petitioner's husband late Ram Bhajan, as alleged and as stated by the petitioner, committed suicide on 24.04.2016 but the elder brother of the deceased (petitioner's husband) lodged a written report that it was a case of a crime being committed by the petitioner and not a case of simple suicide and on his written complaint FIR No.95 date.24.04.2016 was registered at Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner along with the paramour Pappu S/o Kishan u/Sec.302 & 201 IPC and after the charge being framed, the petitioner is facing trial and one of her elder daughter Miss Kavita happens to be a Prosecution Witness in the calendar of witnesses and the children are presently with their parental uncle for more than a year obviously after the death of their father on 24.04.2016 and the petitioner after remaining in the judicial custody for six months was granted post arrest bail u/Sec.439 of the Code. 4. For taking custody of her minor children, application came to be filed before the ld. Magistrate by the petitioner but taking into consideration the overall facts & circumstances, the ld.Magistrate did not find any substance and accordingly her application came to be rejected vide order date.03.02.2017. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts which have been taken note of are not relevant for the purpose of her claim of taking custody of her minor children and according to her they being under illegal custody of their parental uncle, she being their natural guardian is certainly entitled to seek their custody under the present Habeas Corpus Petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. 6. The submission made by the petitioner's counsel has been opposed by the State Counsel and so also by the counsel for respondent No.4 & 5 and reply has been filed by the State Counsel. 7. This facts has not been disputed that the petitioner along with her paramour Pappu are facing trial u/Sec.302 & 201 IPC for committing alleged murder of her own husband. 8. We make it clear that at this stage, this court is not supposed to comment about the pending trial but the question arises for consideration, in the given facts & circumstances, is as to whether if the minor children are presently residing with their parental uncle for last more than a year and one of the children is a prosecution witness in the calendar of witnesses who is yet to be examined and the petitioner is facing trial for offence u/Sec.302 & 201 IPC. 9. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied on the issue that she deserves indulgence of taking custody of her minor children and their custody with the parental uncle cannot be said to be illegal in the given facts & circumstances which may call upon this court to invoke its jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution in the Habeas Corpus Petition more so when her application filed for taking cognizance before the ld.Magistrate has been rejected vide order date.03.02.2017. 10. At this stage, counsel submits that if the petitioner takes a decision of filing application before the Competent Authority under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, at least she needs indulgence of early disposal of her application. If the petitioner approaches for filing an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it is expected to decide the same expeditiously. 11. Consequently, in our considered view, the instant Habeas Corpus Petition being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed. However, that will not refrain the petitioner from taking legal action which the law permits to her including filing of an application u/Sec.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, if so advised.