ORDER : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, where this court passed the following order : 1. The parents are aggrieved by the action of some of the private respondents as their son Rajveer Singh aged 12 years studying at Descent Vidhyalay in 7th standard is missing. His date of birth is 12.07.2008. 2. We have heard learned advocate Ms. Bela Prajapati for Mr. B.M.Mangukiya. She has urged that earlier also the petitioner no.1 was forcibly taken away by the respondent no.3 for which a complaint had been made which is at Annexure-C. This according to her, has not been converted into the First Information Report and after 26.06.2020 once again the petitioner no. 1 is missing. 3. Issue Notice returnable on 03.07.2020. Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The private respondent nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 be served through respondent no.2. Service of notice through e-mode is permitted. 4. Let the amendment with regard to the missing of petitioner no.1 also be made on urgent basis. There shall be two corpora in that case and the learned APP can find out as to whether any FIR has been lodged on the strength of the application given by the petitioner no.1 in the month of June, 2020 addressed to the Police Inspector, A-Division Police Station, Himmatnagar with a copy to the DSP, Sabarkantha. 4.1 Let both the Corpora be brought before this court on the returnable date or the action taken report shall be submitted.” 2. On 03.07.2020 both the corpora Viralba and son of the present petitioner were presented before this Court through the video conferencing arranged from the Court at Himmatnagar, District: Sabarkantha and afternoon such production, order passed is as follows:- 1. On 29.06.2020, this Court passed the following order: - “1. The parents are aggrieved by the action of some of the private respondents as their son Rajveer Singh aged 12 years studying at Descent Vidhyalay in 7th standard is missing. His date of birth is 12.07.2008. 2. We have heard learned advocate Ms. Bela Prajapati for Mr. B.M.Mangukiya. On 29.06.2020, this Court passed the following order: - “1. The parents are aggrieved by the action of some of the private respondents as their son Rajveer Singh aged 12 years studying at Descent Vidhyalay in 7th standard is missing. His date of birth is 12.07.2008. 2. We have heard learned advocate Ms. Bela Prajapati for Mr. B.M.Mangukiya. She has urged that earlier also the petitioner no.1 was forcibly taken away by the respondent no.3 for which a complaint had been made which is at Annexure- C. This according to her, has not been converted into the First Information Report and after 26.06.2020 once again the petitioner no. 1 is missing. with us as per our request to the Registrar General and he has ensured that the corpus Viralba and corpus Rajveersinh talk to us through this medium of video conferencing in absence of any other person who may have a possibility of influencing the lady or the child while they have independent dialogues with the Court. 4. The Corpus Viralba, on a query raised by this Court and on her own has been categorical that she has left her husband to join respondent no.3 Surendrapratasinh and this is on account of the physical and mental harassment that she has suffered at the ends of her husband. She also has detailed as to how monetarily she has suffered for the past seven months and has chosen to leave the place of her husband with her son and she has no inclination to join the husband once again. She further submits that the husband is already married before she was married to her at the age of 17 years and she has named one Parul Patel, in Ahmedabad having a daughter with whom her husband spent most of his time. She has also urged that she should be permitted to leave peacefully with her son and if she compelled to join the husband or further harassed, both of them may end the lives. 5. Independently we also had chosen to speak to the corpus Rajveersinh who is aged 12 years and appeared to be understanding as to where he was and what he was conveying. He also has categorically stated of having left father’s premise with mother and is desirous of continuing with his mother. 6. At the request of learned advocate Mr. 5. Independently we also had chosen to speak to the corpus Rajveersinh who is aged 12 years and appeared to be understanding as to where he was and what he was conveying. He also has categorically stated of having left father’s premise with mother and is desirous of continuing with his mother. 6. At the request of learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya appearing for the petitioner, the father has been permitted to have dialogue with the son and he made a request to the son to join him back, to which, the son has refused. The son also in a polite manner said sorry to his father and was also not inclined to look at him all throughout the monolog on the part of the father. 7. Noticing the clear intent on the part of the corpus Viralba on having joined voluntarily the respondent no.3 – Surendrapratapsinh who happens to be the brother of her maternal aunt (Mami), on instructions, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that the husband is aware that she cannot be forced to join him. Whatever the legal recourse available to him, he shall undertake. We are also satisfied that the corpus is disinclined to join the husband due to various grounds that she has put forth. She has also refused to have voluntarily signed Annexure-C at page 17 which has been forming part of the record. 8. Without entering into the disputes of the spouses and not delving much into the merits of the matters, the request of the petitioner – Kanaksinh Lalsingh Rathod qua the petitioner no.1 is dismissed and disposed of. 9. So far as the corpus Rajveersinh is concerned, he being a minor and not inclined to join the father, noticing the fact that the corpus Viralba is still married to Kanaksinh, despite the marital disputes of the parties, we have acceded to the request of learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya to verify certain details of respondent no. 3 so also to ensure ourselves as the Court is a loco parentis to safeguard the interest of the child for which the police authority, particularly at the level of Superintendent of Police of the concerned district shall make an inquiry in relation to the respondent no.3 and his family and shall report to this Court on or before 17.07.2020. 3 so also to ensure ourselves as the Court is a loco parentis to safeguard the interest of the child for which the police authority, particularly at the level of Superintendent of Police of the concerned district shall make an inquiry in relation to the respondent no.3 and his family and shall report to this Court on or before 17.07.2020. Till then, the police officer shall ensure that the lady is given the safe passage with the child and she be continued, to be, where she needs to be, with the protective umbrella to the child in particular. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, on instruction, also ensured to this Court that there shall be no extra legal measures attempted by the husband and this dispute shall not be permitted to be escalated at his ends, as the Court is already undertaking the inquiry and also shall eventually pass an order for the welfare of the child. 11. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for him to coordinate with the concerned Superintendent of Police. If need be so, Mr. Sheikh, learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge shall also coordinate with him. He shall also ensure the safe passage of both the corpuses. 12. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Mr. E.M.Sheikh, 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, in this matter. 13. Matter to appear on 17.07.2020.” 3. Pursuant to our order dated 03.07.2020, a detailed report has been shared by the police officer with learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Court Master. The said report has been shared with learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the applicants. 4. Heard learned advocates for both the sides. The report is taken on record and since it reveals many details in respect of the petitioner and his relationship with the lady, about whom serious questions are raised by his wife, on instructions, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that Parul is ex-wife of the present petitioner. The daughter also was born to them. However, they later on separated in a legal way and she being an ex-wife, sometimes some help had been extended to her. He has insisted that the relationship of the wife of the petitioner with respondent No.3 is adulterous, because she continues to be the wife of the petitioner. The daughter also was born to them. However, they later on separated in a legal way and she being an ex-wife, sometimes some help had been extended to her. He has insisted that the relationship of the wife of the petitioner with respondent No.3 is adulterous, because she continues to be the wife of the petitioner. And therefore, it is not advisable to continue their son’s custody with his wife. 5. Considering the order passed by this Court on 03.07.2020 and also what this Court had noticed in the behaviour of son who was not even ready to look at the father, there appears to be no rapport of his with his son. Although not only the Petitioner as father, but the Court also insisted on establishing communication and yet, the boy refused to even talk to him, let alone join him permanently. He is a boy of 11 years having fairly good understanding and clarity of mind. The Court sees no reason to compel him to join his father, more particularly, with all the details which have been placed before this Court. Without delving further into those issues and without even entering into the matrimonial disputes, which the parties can agitate before the appropriate forum, this petition is being disposed of even qua the custody of the son of petitioner who is happy to be with his mother, Ms.Viralba. His education is also not being hampered and as we had noted on earlier occasions, let there be no extra legal means adopted by the petitioner to get the custody of either his wife or the child. So far as the wife is concerned, she is an adult and, if she chooses not to join, then any other legal recourse, open to the petitioner, may be adopted in accordance with law. For the custody of the child, If he chooses to approach the family court on advise, it shall be for the respective Court to decide the same in accordance with law. We have not found as loco parentie any need for change of custody in this Petition of the child who has insisted to be with the mother. The child appears to be happy and also continuing his studies. 6. We have not found as loco parentie any need for change of custody in this Petition of the child who has insisted to be with the mother. The child appears to be happy and also continuing his studies. 6. Let the directions issued by us of the visit of the welfare officer from the Department of Women and Child Welfare continue to visit both of them and also report shall be submitted to the police authority in the concerned jurisdiction with the copy to the same to the Registrar (Judicial) to be placed on record. This shall continue for one (01)year. 7. Application stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.