ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, father of the minor child Master Revarth Bajpai is seeking for handing over custody of the minor child contending inter alia that the child is in illegal and wrongful confinement of respondents No.3 and 4. 2. We have heard Sri. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Thejesh P., learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents No.1, 2 and 5 and Sri. Nitin R., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 and have perused the records. 3. Though several contentions have been raised in this petition contending inter alia that minor child is illegally detained by respondents No.3 and 4 after the demise of petitioner’s wife on 15-05-2020, we do not propose to delve upon these issues for the reasons indicated herein below: 4. Petitioner herein and Smt. Roopali Mishra got married at HAL Community Center, Lucknow on 28-01-2013 and out of the said wedlock, Smt. Roopali Mishra gave birth to a baby boy at Singapore on 26-05-2016 who was named as Master Revarth Bajpai. Said Roopali Mishra is said to have committed suicide on 15-05-2020 at Bengaluru and the jurisdictional Police namely, Hulimavu Police have registered an FIR in Crime No.93/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against petitioner herein. As the petitioner was taken into judicial custody, bail petition moved by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Petition No.2883/2020 resulted in bail being granted to the petitioner conditionally vide order dated 10-07-2020 Annexure D. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 20-08-2020. 5. When this was the factual scenario, petitioner herein lodged a complaint on 20-07-2020 Annexure G before the second respondent, making several allegations and also complaining that his son Master Revarth Bajpai had been taken into unlawful custody or illegally detained by Respondents No.3 and 4 amongst the persons named therein. On account of no fruitful result having been yielded on the said complaint, petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court for grant of prayers as noted hereinabove. 6. Mr. Aditya sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable as Respondents 3 and 4, in their Statement of Objections have taken up a contention that writ petition is not maintainable. The said contention is rebutted by the learned counsel Mr. 6. Mr. Aditya sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable as Respondents 3 and 4, in their Statement of Objections have taken up a contention that writ petition is not maintainable. The said contention is rebutted by the learned counsel Mr. Nitin appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4. However, said issue need not be delved upon as said issue has been laid to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court and said issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid down in the matter of TEJASWINI GAUD AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 42 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held: “19. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the Court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.” In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court after having noticed that mother of the minor child had been detected ‘breast cancer’, found that while the mother of the minor child was under treatment, the child was with the father till November 2017 and unfortunately, the father had to be hospitalized as he was diagnosed with Tuberculosis Meningitis and Pulmonary Tuberculosis, as a result of which the sister of the minor’s mother, i.e. Smt. Tejaswini Gaud and her husband had taken her for treatment along with the child to their residence at Mumbai and on death of their sister on 17-10-2018, the minor child is said to have continued with them and father of the minor child who was discharged from Hospital was denied the custody of the child which continued to be with the sister of the deceased mother of the minor child. In this background, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case, referring to the case herein supra has observed as below: “20. In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the court exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus.” When the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove is applied to the facts on hand, we notice that mother of the minor child in the instant case had committed suicide and case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has abetted the suicide and as such, they had not only registered the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306, but also under Section 498A of the IPC. Any opinion or observation made by us in this regard by attempting to delve upon the rival contentions would have disastrous consequences on the rights of the parties and it would prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending criminal proceedings. As such, we refrain from expressing any opinion in that regard. 7. It is trite law, that while considering the custody of the minor child, the Court would take into consideration the welfare of the minor child which is paramount. As welfare of the minor child is of paramount consideration, the issue regarding custody of minor child will have to be adjudicated taking all relevant facts into consideration. It is true that father being a natural guardian of a minor child when mother is not alive and has a preferential right to claim custody of his son, the welfare of the minor child being paramount consideration would not pale into insignificance and it is not the legal right of a particular party which will have to be considered at the cost of minor’s welfare. The issue regarding grant of guardianship is now seized before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Noida, by virtue of Guardianship Petition No.31/2020 filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein. An interim prayer for continuing the custody of the minor child is also said to have been sought for by them and said matter is now said to have been transferred on 13-09-2020 to the Court of the Additional Family Judge, Goutambudh Nagar and next hearing date has been fixed on 15-12-2020. Thus, it would be open for the petitioner to oppose the said prayer before the jurisdictional Court and petitioner would also be entitled to seek for handing over the custody of the minor child. It would be open for the jurisdictional Family Court to examine the rival claims keeping in mind the paramount interest of the child and if necessary by interacting with the child also. We also refrain from expressing any opinion in this regard since the matter is now seized before the jurisdictional Family Court with regard to the custody of the minor child. 8. At this juncture, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioner that minor child Master Revarth Bajpai being in illegal detention of grand-parents. Though rival contentions have been raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties to buttress their respective arguments in this regard, as observed by us hereinabove, we refrain from expressing any opinion in this regard and we leave open the said question to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional Court which is seized of the Guardianship Petition No.31/2020. An attempt has also been made by respondents No.3 and 4 requesting the jurisdictional Police to include the child as a witness to the incident of crime and on account of the charge sheet now having been filed against the petitioner and an order is yet to be passed on it, we refrain from expressing any views in that regard also and it is left open to both the parties to urge their respective contentions in an appropriate forum. 9. 9. However, the fact remains that petitioner being the father of the child would be also interested in the welfare of the child and on account of child now being in the custody of respondents 3 and 4 who are said to be residing along with their second daughter at Noida, it would suffice to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to ensure that a meeting is held between the minor child Master Revarth Bajpai and the petitioner herein through Video Conference in the light of pandemic prevailing in the entire country, as it would be in the interest of minor child and both parties. 10. Hence, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondents No.3 and 4 to ensure that the minor child Master Revarth Bajpai would meet the petitioner twice a month through Video Conference commencing from 12-12-2020 initially for a period of half an hour and later on it can be extended upto forty-five minutes depending upon the situation prevailing. 11. In order to avoid any confusion in the minds of the parties, we direct that the said Video Conference shall take place as under:- [a] Video conferencing shall be held commencing from 12-12-2020 at 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and it shall be held twice in a month and this arrangement shall be in operation till orders on Petition No.31/2020, i.e. interim or otherwise would be passed by the Court of the Additional Family Judge, Goutambudh Nagar, adjudicating said Petition. [b] It is made clear that Respondents No.3 and 4 shall ensure that child is not tutored and a cordial atmosphere shall be created for the father and minor child to meet through Video Conference. [c] It is also made clear that jurisdictional Court would not be influenced by any observations made under this order and notwithstanding this interim arrangement made, it shall independently examine the claim of the parties for grant of guardian ship of the minor child Master Revarth Bajpai.