JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -State. 3. Heard Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7. 4. The petitioner being the wife of respondent no. 7 has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking production and custody of her two minor children who are staying with respondent no. 7. 5. The entire allegation of the petitioner, as it appears from the present petition, is that the petitioner was staying with her husband in Tamil Nadu and the husband had kicked her out from her matrimonial home and forcibly retained her two minor children. It is also alleged by the petitioner, by referring to certain photograph annexed with the present petition, that the children are not being properly cared for by the Respondent no. 7 and they have suffered some injury while staying with the Respondent no. 7. 6. It is important to refer to order dated 24.10.2019 passed in the present case. On 24.10.2019 learned counsel for the respondent - husband of the petitioner, submitted that the husband of the petitioner is residing in Tamil Nadu and a prayer was made for seeking instruction in the matter of securing the presence of the respondent- husband before this Court. On such prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent, office was directed to place the matter on 14.11.2019 at 04.15 P.M. in chambers and both the parties (petitioner and the respondent - husband) were directed to be present before this Court on that date. 7. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 14.11.2019 wherein it has been recorded that the conciliation proceedings was taken up and the parties had agreed that the respondent No.7/ husband of the petitioner shall allow the petitioner/ wife to meet their minor sons at Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu in the presence of respondent No.6, i.e., the Officer-In-Charge, Tiruppur North Police Station, District Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu or any police personnel deputed by respondent No.06. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent husband to pay Rs. 50,000/- on or before 22.11.2019 to the petitioner towards expenses of the to and fro journey of the petitioner from Ranchi to Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent husband to pay Rs. 50,000/- on or before 22.11.2019 to the petitioner towards expenses of the to and fro journey of the petitioner from Ranchi to Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu. Respondent No. 7 was also directed to ensure proper arrangement for accommodation of the petitioner either in his house at Tiruppur or at any other suitable place at Tiruppur for facilitating the meeting of the petitioner with her minor sons. It was also indicated that the petitioner shall intimate and inform the respondent -husband regarding the date of her visit to Tiruppur. 8. The order dated 14.11.2019 was duly complied with by the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and the petitioner has herself filed a supplementary-affidavit before this Court on 17.12.2019 wherein her meeting with her children at the police station in presence of police official including lady police officials has been mentioned. In this affidavit, the petitioner had raised a number of grievances against her husband- respondent no. 7 as to how he has been trying to mislead the children, but in this affidavit, nothing has been mentioned about the physical or mental condition of her minor children and no complaint about the well-being of the children has been made. 9. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 04.08.2021 and on that day also, the petitioner was fully heard and thereafter the counsel for the petitioner sought short time to obtain instructions on the question of seeking appropriate relief from the competent court of law in such a matter of custody of children. It is not in dispute that under normal circumstances, the courts constituted under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are available. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 10. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been instructed to argue the matter. Upon query of the court as to whether the present habeas corpus petition itself is maintainable, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others” reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42 and has specifically referred to paragraph nos. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others” reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42 and has specifically referred to paragraph nos. 14 and 19 of the said report to submit that even in case of dispute of custody of children between husband and wife, the writ of habeas corpus may lie. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present habeas corpus petition is maintainable before this Court. He has also referred to certain pleadings in the writ petition and has submitted that those have not been specifically denied by the respondent no. 7 and accordingly, they constitute admitted facts on record. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party no. 7 - husband of the Petitioner 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 has submitted that the present habeas corpus petition itself is not maintainable as the children are in custody of their natural guardian i.e. the husband of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the whole purpose of habeas corpus petition has been already satisfied in view of the fact that the petitioner had the occasion to meet her children physically by going to Tamil Nadu under the order of this Court at the expenses of the respondent no. 7. 13. The learned counsel has also submitted that as multiple cases are pending between the parties, there was no occasion to give parawise reply to the writ petition and accordingly, para-wise reply to the writ petition has not been given, but at the same time, the allegations which have been made in the writ petition are themselves subject matter of consideration in various cases pending between the parties. He submits that merely because the respondent no. 7 has not specifically denied those allegations in the counteraffidavit, the same cannot be taken to be admitted facts. He also submits that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the present case and accordingly, the present proceedings may be closed as the purpose of the writ petition has already been served by facilitating the meeting of the petitioner with her two minor children. He submits that if any pronouncement is made by this Court on the merits of the case in one way or the other, that will have a direct bearing in the pending litigations between the parties. Findings of this Court 14. He submits that if any pronouncement is made by this Court on the merits of the case in one way or the other, that will have a direct bearing in the pending litigations between the parties. Findings of this Court 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 are in litigating terms and a number of cases are pending between them. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner had come back from her matrimonial home and she has alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and her two minor children were retained by the respondent no. 7. It is not in dispute that as on date, the children are living with the respondent no. 7. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, at the cost and expense of the respondent no. 7 and with the consent of the parties, the petitioner had gone to Tamil Nadu to meet her children and she has met her children in terms of the order passed by this Court. 15. This Court also finds that in the supplementary-affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner after meeting her children, no complaint as such has been made in connection with the well-being of the children upon meeting with her children. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that there are highly disputed questions of facts involved in this case. Any pronouncement on facts alleged in the writ petition, will have a direct bearing on the pending litigation between the parties. This Court is also of the view that such disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition, even if it is a petition for habeas corpus. 17. This Court is also of the considered view that the very purpose of the habeas corpus petition has already been satisfied by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court and facilitating meeting of the petitioner with her two children who are in custody of the respondent no. 7, the husband of the petitioner. 18. 17. This Court is also of the considered view that the very purpose of the habeas corpus petition has already been satisfied by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court and facilitating meeting of the petitioner with her two children who are in custody of the respondent no. 7, the husband of the petitioner. 18. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in the present case and accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy available to the petitioner for the purposes of seeking the custody / well-being of her children in accordance with law. 19. So far as the judgment passed in the case of Tejaswini Gaud (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that in paragraph 20 of the said report, it has been clearly held that in child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or under Guardians and Wards Act, as the case may be. It has been held that in cases arising out of 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 and there are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and exercise of powers by a writ court which is summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. It has also been held that 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, then the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil courts. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor child will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus. 20. In the said judgment of Tejaswini Gaud (supra), the writ petition was filed by the father and natural guardian of the child seeking custody of his child from the sisters and brother of the mother of the child. 20. In the said judgment of Tejaswini Gaud (supra), the writ petition was filed by the father and natural guardian of the child seeking custody of his child from the sisters and brother of the mother of the child. Admittedly they did not have any authority of law to have custody of the minor child governed by Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the entitlement of the father to have the custody of the child was not in dispute. In this background of undisputed facts, the writ petition was held to be maintainable. 21. The said judgment of Tejaswini Gaud (supra) does not help the petitioner in any manner as disputed facts are involved in the present case regarding entitlement of the custody of the children between petitioner -mother and Respondent no. 7- father. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that detailed enquiry is required in the matter of custody of the children of the petitioner and the Respondent no. 7 which can be appropriately decided by the competent court of law. 23. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the competent court of law for redressal of her grievances. 24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.