JUDGMENT : 1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been instituted by Smt. Priti Dwivedi with a prayer that Aditya Dwivedi and Kumari Chhavi Dwivedi, her two minor children be ordered to be produced on a rule nisi from the custody of Dilip Dwivedi, the minors’ father and ordered to be set at liberty in the manner that the custody of the two minors be handed over to Priti Dwivedi, their mother and natural guardian. 2. A rule nisi in the matter was issued on 09.09.2020, ordering the two minors to be produced on 16.09.2020. This Court finding it to be a sensitive matter where the two minors caught in a battle between their parents, could be spared all that agony, referred the parties to the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center, in order to attempt an amicable settlement. That order was made on 18.09.2020. The report of the mediation center dated 19.10.2020 shows that mediation sessions were held on 21.09.2019, 09.10.2020, 12.10.2020, 14.10.2020 and 19.10.2020. Unfortunately, the mediation was completed with a report of “no agreement”. This Court, accordingly, proceeded to hear the matter on merits on 22.10.2020 and judgment was reserved. 3. Parties have exchanged affidavits where Dilip Dwivedi, the 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner, a rejoinder. 4. On 22.10.2020, the minor detenues Master Aditya Dwivedi and Kumari Chhavi Dwivedi were both required to be present. They were produced by their father, Dilip Dwivedi. This Court interacted with the minors in considerable detail. The outcome of that enterprise would be alluded to later in this judgment. 5. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State. 6. Priti Dwivedi and Dilip Dwivedi were married according to Hindu rites on 28.01.2012. A son named Aditya and a daughter Chhavi were born of the wedlock of parties. Aditya is now aged seven years whereas Chhavi is aged about five years. It is not in issue that parties have become an estranged couple and live apart. 7. A reading of the pleadings of the parties here and the documents annexed show that the husband and wife are in the thick of a matrimonial discord. Aditya is now aged seven years whereas Chhavi is aged about five years. It is not in issue that parties have become an estranged couple and live apart. 7. A reading of the pleadings of the parties here and the documents annexed show that the husband and wife are in the thick of a matrimonial discord. There is also litigation pending between them, with the wife having filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act and for Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. A reading of the counter affidavit shows that the husband has come up with very serious allegations questioning his wife’s fidelity. He has also attempted to annex some documentary proof about all that. This Court is not inclined to look into those allegations or the material in support. It is not our business at all in the present proceedings to go into those murky allegations. Both the children are young, and, normally for children that age, the mother is always regarded better equipped to secure their welfare. It is not so much about the right of the guardian to the minors’ custody as it is about the minors’ welfare. It is beyond cavil by now that welfare of the minor is of paramount importance. The father and the mother are both natural guardian under Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The mother’s right as a natural guardian under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act stands at par with the father, once the father is absent from the minors’ care, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Githa Hariharan (Ms) and another vs. Reserve Bank of India and another, 1999 (2) SCC 228 . It would, thus, always be central to a decision about the minor’s custody between the two guardians, both of whom are natural, as to where the minor’s welfare would be better secured. This principle has been endorsed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nil Ratan Kundu and another vs. Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (9) SCC 413 . It is held in Neel Ratan Kundu (supra): 52. This principle has been endorsed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nil Ratan Kundu and another vs. Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (9) SCC 413 . It is held in Neel Ratan Kundu (supra): 52. In our judgment, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this: In deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of a minor, a court of law should keep in mind the relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. 9. The principles on which the welfare of the minor is to be tested are encapsulated in the remarks of their Lordships in Nil Ratan Kundu (supra) above extracted. 10. It is also a settled principle that welfare of a child has parameters on which it may be determined, but in a given case, what conclusions may be drawn by the Court, are not founded on any kind of a stereotyped approach. It has to be the outcome of a keen assessment about the circumstances obtaining in the case. In this connection, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2019 (7) SCC 42 , where in the context of facts there, the principle was stated thus: 35. In this connection, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2019 (7) SCC 42 , where in the context of facts there, the principle was stated thus: 35. The welfare of the child has to be determined owing to the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court cannot take a pedantic approach. In the present case, the first respondent has neither abandoned the child nor has deprived the child of a right to his love and affection. The circumstances were such that due to illness of the parents, the appellants had to take care of the child for some time. Merely because, the appellants being the relatives took care of the child for some time, they cannot retain the custody of the child. It is not the case of the appellants that the first respondent is unfit to take care of the child except contending that he has no female support to take care of the child. The first respondent is fully recovered from his illness and is now healthy and having the support of his mother and is able to take care of the child. (Emphasis by Court) 11. It is, thus, evident that while parameters on which the welfare of a child can be determined are enumerated by high authority and also spelt out by statutes such as Section 17(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, every case has its individual features to be carefully analyzed in the application of these principles. It must also be emphasized that guardianship and the right to custody may be different. Normally, the two coalesce but where aberrations such as a fission of the nuclear family takes place, notwithstanding the natural guardianship being with one or the other or both the parents, custody becomes a more important issue. Who should have custody or the dominant part of custody with visitation rights to the other, is also to be determined on the same principles of welfare as apply to the case of appointment or declaration of a guardian under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act. 12. In the present case, what this Court finds is that the minors are staying with the father during all the time that the mother has been away. 12. In the present case, what this Court finds is that the minors are staying with the father during all the time that the mother has been away. Aditya Dwivedi has informed the Court that he reads at the Ansy Convent School, relating to which there are documents also on record brought in through the counter affidavit. Chhavi Dwivedi also reads in the said school. Aditya has shared with the Court the fact the he has his grandmother (father’s mother), aunt (Bua), his father and sister, all of whom stay together at the father’s place. He has clearly indicated his preference not to stay with his mother. He said that she beats him. On the Court inquiring further into the matter, pointing out to the child who is quite intelligent that mothers do have to chastise children, he said that she hits him and his sister for no cause. He expressed his definitive preference to stay with his father. Aditya is about seven years old and a fairly intelligent child. The preference that he has expressed about the guardian in whose custody he would wish to stay cannot be ignored altogether. The Court has also spoken to the other minor Kumari Chhavi. She is a younger child but fairly intelligent. She is aged about five years. She also spoke in the same vein, indicating a definite preference to stay with her father. She indicated that she is happy in the family comprising her father, brother, grandmother and her aunt (Bua). Surprisingly, she also indicated her disinclination to stay with her mother. The two children appear to be very comfortably settled in their father’s home where they have a grandmother and also an aunt. Also, the evidence in whatever form it has come shows that the children are being looked after well in all the various facets of a healthy development – physical, mental, moral and comfortwise. 13. It is also clear that the education and moral training is fairly well taken care of. They are psychologically also in the secure atmosphere of a family. No doubt, the mother is not there but in the Court’s opinion the balance to judge the children’s welfare would tilt in favour of the father’s family, given the totality of circumstances and also the minors’ choice very eloquently expressed by the elder child, Aditya. 14. They are psychologically also in the secure atmosphere of a family. No doubt, the mother is not there but in the Court’s opinion the balance to judge the children’s welfare would tilt in favour of the father’s family, given the totality of circumstances and also the minors’ choice very eloquently expressed by the elder child, Aditya. 14. Smt. Priti Dwivedi, who is the minor’s mother, cannot be altogether deprived of their company and the minors’ her care and affection. In the opinion of this Court, Smt. Priti Dwivedi would have visitation rights from morning till evening twice a month. She would be entitled to visit the children at her husband’s place from 9 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the evening on the first and the second Sunday of the month. This schedule can be adjusted by the parties according to their convenience, but not so as to reduce the visitation hours and the number of days that the mother is entitled to in a month. 15. It is ordered that the husband, Dilip Dwivedi and all his family members shall extend due courtesy to Smt. Priti Dwivedi when she visits the children and shall facilitate the children in meeting her. 16. This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.