ORDER (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) By this petition, the petitioner-Smt.Naredla Hari Priya is seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce her daughter, 8 years old baby girl named Hema Nagasri (hereinafter referred to as child/baby girl), before this Court from the detainment of 5th respondent-Mr. Naredla Trinath Kumar, who is the father of the baby girl and set her at liberty by handing over to the petitioner and pass such other orders as may be deemed proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard Ms. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. The brief narration of the facts, as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, may be stated thus: The petitioner studied M.Sc.(Maths) and her marriage was performed with the 5th respondent as per the Hindu Rites and Customs on 26.10.2012 in Tenali. They were blessed with a baby girl on 20.12.2013 who was later named as Hema Nagasri and she is 8 years old. As the petitioner gave birth to a baby girl, her in-laws and husband-5th respondent herein, started harassing the petitioner and unable to bear the torture, having waited for long time that they would change their behavior, the petitioner was constrained to leave the home along with her daughter on 27.01.2018. Since then, the petitioner has been staying in her mother’s house and admitted the baby girl in N.R.I. School. The respondent used to come on every Sunday to the petitioner’s house, was taking the baby girl to his house and send back the child within 2 to 4 hours. On 18.12.2020, 5th respondent requested the petitioner to send the baby girl along with him and believing that he would bring back the child by the evening, the petitioner agreed to send the child, but the 5th respondent did not send the child to the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner went to the house of her in-laws, but the 5th respondent did not allow her to enter into the house and even refused to show her the child. The petitioner came to know that the baby girl was kept in the house of one Vijaya Lakshmi, who is the sister of 5th respondent and resident of Penugonda, Tanuku Mandal, as the said Vijaya Lakshmi had no children. 4. The petitioner came to know that the baby girl was kept in the house of one Vijaya Lakshmi, who is the sister of 5th respondent and resident of Penugonda, Tanuku Mandal, as the said Vijaya Lakshmi had no children. 4. The 5th respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.192 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Section 9 and after taking away the baby girl, the 5th respondent withdrew the said O.P. Further, the 5th respondent is not sending the child to the School and not allowing the petitioner even to talk to her on phone. The petitioner came to know that the 5th respondent is trying to give her child in adoption to his sister and further the 5th respondent’s sister and his parents and other relatives are not giving any information about the 5th respondent and her daughter. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner made a complaint on 28.08.2021 to the 2nd to 4th respondents, but no action was taken by them. Apprehending that the life of the baby girl is in a precarious situation and as the petitioner could not find her whereabouts and as the 5th respondent is not allowing the petitioner to talk with her daughter even over phone and not showing her to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed for grant of relief as prayed for. 5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the 5th respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner voluntarily left the companionship of the 5th respondent along with the baby girl and she again dropped the child at the residence of the respondent mentioning her inconvenience in keeping the baby girl with her. Since then, the child is residing with the 5th respondent along with her grand parents in the 5th respondent’s own residence and she is studying in Sri Chaitanya Public School, Ramalingeswarpet, Tenali. It is denied that the child is with the 5th respondent’s sister at Penugonda. The fact that the 5th respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.192 of 2019 was admitted, but it is stated that the said O.P., was withdrawn as the 5th respondent came to know about the petitioner’s extra-marital relationship. It is denied that the child is with the 5th respondent’s sister at Penugonda. The fact that the 5th respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.192 of 2019 was admitted, but it is stated that the said O.P., was withdrawn as the 5th respondent came to know about the petitioner’s extra-marital relationship. The 5th respondent, therefore, filed H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, for dissolution of marriage and in the said case, the petitioner received the notice and contesting the matter. It is claimed that as the petitioner is approaching the police authorities and making false complaints, the respondent filed the said G.W.O.P. to declare him as natural guardian of the baby girl who is living with him to prevent unnecessary harassment from police. It is stated that the petitioner, though had knowledge about the G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2021 and H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2021, suppressed the same, and filed the writ petition with false averments. While denying various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is also alleged that the petitioner married one Pinapala Suresh during existence of the petitioner’s marriage with the 5th respondent etc., and some photographs were filed along with the counter-affidavit. 6. The petitioner filed a reply-affidavit contradicting the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner voluntarily left the company of the 5th respondent etc., It is stated that her enquiries revealed that the baby girl was admitted in the school in the month of August, 2021 after filing of the present writ petition. She denied receipt of any notice in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2021 or G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2021, said to have been filed by the 5th respondent and stated that she had no knowledge about the said cases before filing the present writ petition. It is stated that the 5th respondent’s mother is suffering from Cancer for the last six years; that his father is old aged and the 5th respondent is also doing a job and therefore, no person is there to take care of the baby girl. She also denied the contents of the averments in para No.7 of the counter-affidavit and stated that the 5th respondent created a story and photos only to avoid the maintenance case, other cases and to get divorce and that the petitioner has no relation, whatsoever, with the persons referred to in para No.7. 7. She also denied the contents of the averments in para No.7 of the counter-affidavit and stated that the 5th respondent created a story and photos only to avoid the maintenance case, other cases and to get divorce and that the petitioner has no relation, whatsoever, with the persons referred to in para No.7. 7. Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, submitted inter alia that the 5th respondent had taken away the baby girl from the petitioner’s custody in the month of December, 2020 and since then the petitioner is not allowed to talk with the baby girl and the 5th respondent is not even showing her, despite the petitioner’s repeated requests. She contends that the petitioner being the mother and natural guardian of the baby girl is entitled for her custody, and that it is not in the interest of the baby girl, if she is allowed to stay with the 5th respondent, since there would be no proper care and protection at his residence. She also submits that the 5th respondent is intending to give the baby girl in adoption to the 5th respondent’s sister, who is issueless. She further contends that the allegations of extra-marital relationship and the photographs filed are false and concocted for the purpose of making up a case against the petitioner and to secure reliefs on the basis of fabricated material. She further submits that as the petitioner is deprived of her valuable right to have the custody of baby girl due to detainment and denial of access to the child by the 5th respondent, the petitioner is entitled the relief sought for in the writ petition and accordingly, seeks a direction for production of the baby girl. 8. Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, however, submits that the petitioner voluntarily left the matrimonial house of the 5th respondent along with the baby girl in the year 2018 and thereafter, as mentioned in the counter-affidavit, she again dropped the child at the residence of the 5th respondent in the month of December, 2020 and since then the 5th respondent has been taking good care of her by providing education and attending to her all needs. He submits that in view of specific allegations made in the counter-affidavit, it is not in the interest of the baby girl for her to stay with the petitioner and for the reasons stated therein, the 5th respondent was constrained to file O.P. seeking to declare him as a guardian as per the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and also a petition seeking divorce in H.M.O.P.No.192 of 2019, which fact was suppressed by the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, he urges that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the matter concerning the baby girl aged about 8 years in the light of the rival contentions and also perused the materials on record. While it is the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent had taken the baby girl into his custody by making the petitioner believe that the baby girl will be sent back as usual as hitherto being followed and thereafter, not allowing the petitioner even to talk and see the baby girl, the 5th respondent contends that it is the petitioner who has left the baby girl at the residence of the 5th respondent quoting some inconvenience to the petitioner to keep the baby girl with her and further that it is not in the interest of the baby girl to stay with the petitioner, in view of the allegations made against her in the writ petition. In such circumstances, a detailed enquiry is required to be made to elicit the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner and the 5th respondent against each other, more particularly with reference to the respective claims of the parties concerning the custody in the best interest of the child. 10. Though this Court is not called upon to adjudicate as to the custody of minor child, the relief sought for in the present case, is more or less of similar in nature, which cannot ordinarily be granted, except in appropriate cases basing on attending facts and circumstances, which are exceptional and directions expedient in the interest of a minor child can as well be issued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud and Others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others, (2019) 7 SCC 42 held that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised, in exceptional cases, where ordinary remedy provided by law is unavailable or is ineffective. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after a detailed survey of a catena of cases pertaining to maintainability of Writ of Habeas Corpus vis-à-vis custody of child at Para No.14, held as follows: “ 14. Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child. For restoration of the custody of a minor from a person who according to the personal law, is not his legal or natural guardian, in appropriate cases, the writ court has jurisdiction.” At Para No.26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed as follows: “ 26. The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though the provisions of the special statutes govern the rights of the parents or guardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in cases concerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for the court ought to be child interest and welfare of the child.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court looking to the facts and circumstances of the said case, ultimately issued a direction to the respondents therein to hand over the custody of the child aged about 1 ½ year to the father as the mother expired. 11. In the present case, this Court cannot come to any definite conclusion in view of the specific version on oath by the respective parties and issue a direction on the premise that the baby girl was in detainment by 5th the respondent who is none other than her father, who is also a natural guardian. 11. In the present case, this Court cannot come to any definite conclusion in view of the specific version on oath by the respective parties and issue a direction on the premise that the baby girl was in detainment by 5th the respondent who is none other than her father, who is also a natural guardian. Another important factor in the case on hand is that even prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the 5th respondent filed G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2021 and the same is pending consideration before the concerned jurisdictional Court. Under the said circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the relief sought for by the petitioner would frustrate the said O.P., which is otherwise required to be adjudicated on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the respective parties. 12. In this context, it would be apt to refer to the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud’s case (referred supra) which reads thus: “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. 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.” 13. In view of the clear mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court and for the aforegoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 14. In view of the clear mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court and for the aforegoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 14. However, this Court to meet the ends of justice and in the light of the petitioner’s entitlement to prosecute her rights either for interim custody or visitation rights of the child, deems it appropriate to provide that in the event of filing of any appropriate application in the pending proceedings between the parties, the same shall be considered by the learned Court, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on its own merits. 15. This Court, in the interregnum, keeping in view the well-being and interest of the baby girl, deems it expedient to direct the 5th respondent to allow the petitioner to have access to baby girl Hema Nagasri at his residence on every Sunday between 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., and shall ensure the comfort of the petitioner and the baby girl during such time of their stay at his residence. Further, the petitioner shall not carry the child out from the 5th respondent’s house. 16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter touching upon the rival claims and the proceedings between the parties in G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2021 and H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2021 mentioned supra, shall be decided without reference to or being influenced by observations, if any, made by this Court, in the present proceedings. 17. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.