JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, C.J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the wife and the fourth respondent is the husband. The dispute concerns a girl child born on 18th August 2015. It appears that there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. There are allegations made by the petitioner in this petition about the misconduct of the fourth respondent. She has described how she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and how the custody of the child was snatched by the fourth respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that firstly, it must be noted that the police have not taken action on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioner. The copies of the complaints have been annexed to the petition at Annexure-C and Annexure-F. Secondly, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to custody of the child and that the fourth respondent has forcibly taken away the custody. He submitted that even during this period of pandemic, the petitioner is not able to meet the child. He would, therefore, submit that intervention of the Writ Court is required. On record, two decisions have been produced. The first decision of the Apex Court is in the case of Roxann Sharma v. Arun sharma, (2015) AIR SC 2232 . The second decision in the case of Capt. Dushyant Somal Vs. Smt.Sushma Somal and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 277 . 4. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the age of the child now is approximately five years. Even going by the averments made in the petition, from November 2018, the child is in the custody of the fourth respondent-father. The fourth respondent-father has filed statement of objections raising a contention that being a father he is the natural guardian of the child. The averments made in the petition and the statement of objections filed by the fourth respondent show that the wife and the husband are making allegations against each other which indicates that there is a serious matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. There is a rejoinder filed by the petitioner. 5. The averments made in the petition and the statement of objections filed by the fourth respondent show that the wife and the husband are making allegations against each other which indicates that there is a serious matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. There is a rejoinder filed by the petitioner. 5. It is well settled that the issue regarding the custody and visitation rights in relation to a minor child has to be decided not on the basis of the legal rights of the parties but the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. 6. In a given situation, the Writ Court is not powerless. But, in the facts of the case, one has to bear in mind that we are dealing with a girl child who is about 5 years old. Various factors will have to be considered while dealing with the prayer of handing over temporary custody or custody to the petitioner-mother. These are the things which can be done in best possible manner by the competent Court which is empowered to grant custody to the petitioner. 7. Coming to the decision in the case of Roxann Sharma, the case before the Apex Court arose out of the proceedings filed in the Trial Court under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. In the case of Cap.Dushyant Somal, in Paragraph No.7, the Apex Court has observed that normally when there is an alternative remedy such as remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prerogative writ cannot be issued. The Apex Court further observed that where what is complained of is an impudent disregard of the order of the Court, prerogative writ can be issued. 8. There is one more decision of the Apex Court which is placed on record. That decision is in the case of Syed Saleemuddin Vs. Dr.Rukshana and Others, (2001) AIR SC 2172 . In the appeal before the Apex Court, the appellant was the husband and the first respondent was the wife. The first respondent had filed a writ of habeas corpus in relation to two children aged six and five years respectively. In Paragraph No.11 of the decision, the Apex Court has reiterated the well settled principles which read thus; "P11. In the appeal before the Apex Court, the appellant was the husband and the first respondent was the wife. The first respondent had filed a writ of habeas corpus in relation to two children aged six and five years respectively. In Paragraph No.11 of the decision, the Apex Court has reiterated the well settled principles which read thus; "P11. From the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases it is clear that in an application seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for custody of minor children the principal consideration for the Court is to ascertain whether the custody of the children can be said to be unlawful or illegal and whether welfare of the children requires that present custody should be changed and the children should be left in care and custody of somebody else. The principle is well settled that in a matter of custody of a child the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration of the Court. Unfortunately, the judgment of the High Court does not show that the Court has paid attention to these important and relevant questions. The High Court has not considered whether the custody of the children with their father can, in the facts and circumstances, be said to be unlawful. The Court has also not adverted to the question whether for the welfare of the children they should be taken out of the custody of their father and left in the care of their mother. However, it is not necessary for us to consider this question further in view of the fair concession made by Shri M.N.Rao that the appellant has no objection if the children remain in the custody of the mother with the right of the father to visit them as noted in the judgment of the High Court, till the Family Court disposes of the petition filed by the appellant for custody of his children." (underline added) 9. The Apex Court observed that one of the principal considerations for the Court is to ascertain whether the welfare of the child requires that present custody should be changed and the child should be left in the care and custody of the somebody else. Thereafter, the Apex Court reiterated the well settled principle that in the cases filed for the custody of a child, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. 10. Thereafter, the Apex Court reiterated the well settled principle that in the cases filed for the custody of a child, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. 10. In the present case, as of today, the custody of five years old girl child is with the father. The custody is for 11/2 years. We are dealing with the child of a tender age and therefore, we are of the view that the issue regarding grant of visitation rights to the petitioner-wife or grant of temporary and/or permanent custody should be best left to the Court which is competent to decide the issue of custody. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to entertain this petition in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, however, make it clear that though there may not be a prayer in the petition enjoining the police to take action on the basis of the complaints filed by the petitioner, if the complaints make out a case of commission of cognizable offence, the police will have to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 12. It will be always open for the petitioner to approach the competent Court for grant of custody. As the petition is pending in this Court for quite some time, we direct that in case such a petition is filed and an interim application is made before the competent Court for interim custody/visitation rights, considering the tender age of the child, the Trial Court will give utmost priority to the disposal of the application for interim relief. 13. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the entitlement of the fourth respondent to retain custody of the child. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of. The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.