ORDER : Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. 1. This habeas corpus petition has been moved by the petitioner-Smt. Pooja Sharma Dwivedi acting as the mother and next friend of Km. Amyra Dwivedi aged about 3 1/2 years requesting this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing opposite party No. 1 for restoring the custody of the corpus to the petitioner as she is the natural mother of the corpus. 2. The petitioner in her petition has stated that the marriage of opposite party No.1 (her husband) was solemnize with her on 11.02.2012 and out of this wedlock the corpus was born on 06.02.2015. Opposite party No.1 is in hotel industry and after completing his course, he got employment in Taj Groups of Hotel at Lucknow. After few months he left the job and join another hotel at Pune, from where also he left the job and again join at Gurgaon and thereafter he did job at various places till he got a job at Dubai (U.A.E.), where he remained till June 2017. She further stated in her petition that she has also done a master course in business administration and before marriage, she was employed with a reputed company and receiving handsome salary and she is likely to join a service with handsome salary. She left the job after marriage. Opposite party No.1 was very aggressive by nature, his behavior with the petitioner was not normal and he always treated her with hatred and aggression. On 05.07.2018 the petitioner was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and the corpus was not permitted to accompany her. Since then the petitioner is not even being permitted to talk to the corpus and opposite party No.1 has stricticly directed the school i.e. Kidzi School, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow not to allow the petitioner to meet the corpus. The corpus is a female child and she needs special care of her mother for proper grooming. The paramount interest of the corpus would be subserved and safeguarded if the corpus is given in the custody of her mother. 3. Opposite party No. 1 namely Abhinav Trivedi on being served filed his counter-affidavit admitting his marriage with the petitioner and alleging that the petitioner after marriage came to her matrimonial home but never performed her duties and she continuously insisted him to leave his parents home and live with her maternal aunt. 3. Opposite party No. 1 namely Abhinav Trivedi on being served filed his counter-affidavit admitting his marriage with the petitioner and alleging that the petitioner after marriage came to her matrimonial home but never performed her duties and she continuously insisted him to leave his parents home and live with her maternal aunt. She has never ill-treated, abused or harassed her. He and his family members several times, requested her to return to her matrimonial home and to take proper care and attention of her child, but she denied to came back and has filed the instant petition on the basis of false and fabricated facts with the sole motive to get the custody of the child (corpus). He further stated in his counter-affidavit that the petitioner was never abducted by opposite party No. 1. The corpus is happily living with him and his family members. Petitioner is not able to take proper care of the child and the child has done remarkable improvement in her health and status while living with opposite party No. 1. The ignorance of the petitioner is also clear from the fact that she left the corpus when she (corpus) was ill. The petitioner herself intentionally did not provide her company to the corpus and she (petitioner) was never prevented from meeting her daughter or to visit her matrimonial home. The writ petition is otherwise also not maintainable as the petitioner is having alternative remedy under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act. It is requested that the prayer of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the age of the corpus is only 3 1/2 years old, she is regularly falling ill and opposite party No. 1, who happens to be her father, is not takings much care of the corpus and she being the mother of the corpus, is her natural guardian. Keeping in view such a tender age of the corpus, she could not be left unattended especially the fact that the corpus being a girl child, needs special care and attention of her mother more than that of father. The job of opposite party No. 1 is not secured and he is not taking proper care of the corpus and there-fore, the corpus be given in the custody of the petitioner. The job of opposite party No. 1 is not secured and he is not taking proper care of the corpus and there-fore, the corpus be given in the custody of the petitioner. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following case laws : 1. Shoib alias Shebu v. Sabir Ah. alias Shaboo, reported in (1987) ALR (SUM 24) 19 : (1987) All LJ 414; 2. Roxann Sharma v. Aran Sharma, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 318 : ( AIR 2015 SC 2232 ); 3. Bilkis v. Munne Khan, reported in 1986 Lawsuit (MP) 360. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 submits that opposite party No. 1 has done everything possible to keep the matrimonial ties in order but the petitioner namely, Smt. Pooja Sharma did not agree to remain with him and left her matrimonial home on her own. She had not been evicted from her matrimonial home and even on the suggestion of this Court, the petitioner did not agree to remain in a rented accommodation, therefore the sole object of the petitioner is to harass the opposite party No. 1 and she has least concern with the welfare of the corpus. The corpus is being educated in one of the best play schools of Lucknow namely Kidzi School, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, she is being provided best medical facilities as is apparent from the documents filed on record. She is being taken care by the family members of opposite party, while petitioner is jobless and is not in a position to upbring the corpus in a way which is required for, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for the custody of corpus is based on mala fide and be rejected. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor v. Sri. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, reported in (1981) 3 SCC 92 : ( AIR 1982 SC 795 ). 7. Amidst allegation and counter allegations, some facts of the case are not disputed. It is not in dispute that marriage in between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 was solemnized on 11.02.2012 and it is also admitted to the parties that corpus namely Amyra Dwivedi was born on 06.02.2015 who is about 4 years old now. 7. Amidst allegation and counter allegations, some facts of the case are not disputed. It is not in dispute that marriage in between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 was solemnized on 11.02.2012 and it is also admitted to the parties that corpus namely Amyra Dwivedi was born on 06.02.2015 who is about 4 years old now. It is also established on record that both opposite party No. 1 and petitioner (mother) are working and financially sound. Though certain allegations pertaining to irregularities of the job of opposite party No. 1 has been raised by petitioner. The couple did not carry well and their matrimonial relations strained. Petitioner submits that in the year 2018 she was forcefully evicted from her matrimonial home while opposite party No. 1 stated that she left on her own while the corpus was ill and she left the custody of the child of her own. This fact is denied by opposite party No. 1 in counter and stated that she was never permitted from meeting with the corpus. Opposite party No. 1 has submitted that he is taking due care of his daughter and her health is in good condition and she is being educated in a reputed school at Lucknow. Papers pertaining to her treatment and education have been filed with the petition, which shows that opposite party No. 1 is providing quality education to corpus in Kidzi, which is a renowned school for kids. For the last one year or little more the corpus is living with her father. 8. There could not be any doubt to the proposition that any proceedings before the Court where the custody of a minor is in question, the Court in order to decide that question, must have regard to the minor's welfare as the first and paramount consideration and may not take into consideration whether from any other point of view the father's claim in respect of that custody or upbringing is superior to that of mother or the mother's claim in respect of it is superior to that of the father. 9. It is also equally important that if the minor is of such age so as he/she may exercise a choice, the Court will also take his/her wishes into consideration. 9. It is also equally important that if the minor is of such age so as he/she may exercise a choice, the Court will also take his/her wishes into consideration. It is also obligatory for the writ court to keep this principle in mind that even in proceedings pertaining to habeas corpus, a serious and mature thinking is required to decide as to what is for the benefit of the children. They are not mere chattels, nor are they toys for their parents, their welfare has to be judged keeping in view the modern changed social conditions so that they may grow up in a normal and balanced environment as useful members of the society and the Role of the Court is to act as their guardian. In a dispute between mother and father for custody of their children it is expected to strike a just, fair and proper balance between the requirement of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents over them. In such matter human angels are relevant and important. The Court then does not give much emphasis to what parties say, it is obliged on them to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of minor. The Court has to give due weightage to the child's ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings, but over and above physical comfort, the moral and ethical values have also to be considered. 10. The corpus is living in the custody of her father i.e. opposite party No. 1 for the last one year. She is being taken care of by her father. She is studying in play school. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it will not be in the interest of corpus to change her custody from her father/opposite party No. 1 to her mother (petitioner). 11. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I am also of the considered view that, it will be not in the interest of the corpus (minor) to change her custody from her father/opposite party No. 5 to her mother (petitioner), particularly, when the corpus has shown no inclination towards her mother (Petitioner). 12. 11. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I am also of the considered view that, it will be not in the interest of the corpus (minor) to change her custody from her father/opposite party No. 5 to her mother (petitioner), particularly, when the corpus has shown no inclination towards her mother (Petitioner). 12. I have also considered the various Case Laws mentioned hereinbefore in the judgment, filed by the petitioner to substantiate that, keeping in view the tender age of the corpus, petitioner has preferential claim to her custody. As noted earlier, there is difference in approach when deciding the custody of a minor in Guardian and Wards Act and in Habeas Corpus Petition. The sine qua non of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is illegal detention of the corpus and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the custody of the corpus with his biological father could not be termed as illegal detention. Moreover, custody under Guardian and Wards Act is decided after providing an opportunity to the parties to tender evidence in support of their claims and in Habeas Corpus Petition, the sole consideration is "Welfare of the Child", irrespective of the preferential right of the parties. The Writ of Habeas Corpus deals with the machinery of justice and not the substantive Law, the object of which is to release the person detained in illegal custody. The child is unfortunate victims in this case and it is to be understood that, she is not to be treated as chattels and her custody should not be changed frequently to the pleasure of the parents, as the pleasure as well as the rights of the parties are immaterial in these kind of disputes, and only consideration is the welfare of minor. It also appears that, the corpus is studying in a reputed school. The mother (petitioner) is admittedly doing a job. Opposite party No. 1/Father is also financially sound and he appears to be in a position to take care of corpus. Therefore, from the materials brought on record, I hardly find any factor to show that the interest of minor (corpus) shall be better served or protected, in case, she is given in the custody of petitioner (mother). Opposite party No. 1/Father is also financially sound and he appears to be in a position to take care of corpus. Therefore, from the materials brought on record, I hardly find any factor to show that the interest of minor (corpus) shall be better served or protected, in case, she is given in the custody of petitioner (mother). In absence of any such material and compelling circumstances coupled with the fact that, child is in the custody of her biological father for more than one year, as of now and the child is presently living with the opposite party No. 1, I am of the considered view that, any attempt to dislodge the present situation would adversely affect the minor. 13. For all the reasons given hereinabove, the prayer of the petitioner to dislodge the custody of the corpus from opposite party No. 1 to herself is refused. 14. The petitioner in alternative has also prayed that, visiting rights be granted to her, as she is being denied access to meet her daughter (corpus). 15. Keeping in view the entire factual matrix and rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is the mother of corpus and also bearing in mind that the feeling of love and affection of each parent, whether father or mother, for his/her children, be respected, I deem it proper that, visiting rights may be provided to petitioner to meet her daughter. 16. In view of above facts and circumstances following order is passed: (I) The petitioner (Smt. Pooja Sharma) is granted visiting rights to meet her daughter, who is presently residing with the opposite party No.1. The meeting of the petitioner with her daughter (corpus) would be at the place as agreed by the parties and in case of their inability to agree on any place such meeting shall be held at the Office of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow during office hours i.e. 10:00 am. to 4:00 p.m. for two hours on a day and time agreed into by the parties or as directed by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow, on any day preferably Saturday, once in a month. to 4:00 p.m. for two hours on a day and time agreed into by the parties or as directed by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow, on any day preferably Saturday, once in a month. (II) During meeting hours, the petitioner would be free to give any kind of gifts to her daughter of her choice and liking and the same would not be objected to by the opposite party No. 1. However, the petitioner will not take the corpus with her anywhere beyond the boundaries of the Office of Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow. Such meeting will be held in a secured atmosphere and it shall be the duty of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow to provide cordial atmosphere and security to the parties. 17. This order shall not preclude the parties to claim the regular custody of the corpus before appropriate Court by initiating appropriate proceedings. 18. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 19. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Lucknow for compliance.