JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - The bone of contention between the appellant, Col. Jaipreet Singh, who is the father of Arjun, and the respondent No.1, Lt. Col. S. Bajaj, who is the maternal uncle of Arjun, is over the custody of Arjun. 2. The respondent No.1, Lt. Col. S. Bajaj had filed a Habeas Corpus petition, namely Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.10 of 2021, for seeking the custody of his nephew, Arjun. 3. By order dated 09.06.2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition, and granted the custody of Arjun to the respondent No.1, Lt. Col. S. Bajaj. 4. Mr. Abhijay Negi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, informs this Court that as of today Arjun has become major, since he has reached the age of eighteen years. 5. Although, Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, does not challenge the fact that Arjun is now a major person, but even the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he cannot make a statement at the Bar that the present appeal has become infructuous. 6. The stand being taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is rather surprising. For, once Arjun has become major, the question of his custody need not be adjudicated and decided by this Court. Since Arjun is now a major, it is for him to decide with whom he wishes to live, whether he wishes to live with his father, or with his maternal uncle? 7. Once Arjun has become major, the question of his custody does not even survive to be adjudicated by this Court. But despite these facts, the learned counsel for the appellant still contends that the appeal has not become infructuous. 8. This Court does not appreciate the stand being taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. For, a counsel should be honest and should admit the fact, and should clearly state before the Court whether a case has become infructuous, or not. But this Court is of the firm opinion that this appeal has become infructuous. 9. Therefore, it is, hereby, dismissed, as infructuous.