ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri R. K. Joshi and Shri Vikas Samadhiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3/State. Shri Arvind Singh Rana, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. None for respondent No. 6. Corpus is present in person along with Ms. Sanju Rajawat, Incharge, Child Care Center, Vinay Nagar, Gwalior. Petitioner as well as respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 are also present in person. Presence of all stakeholders is marked on separate sheet, which shall be part and parcel of this order. With consent heard finally through physical hearing mode. Present review petition is being preferred by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 22-7-2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9932/2021, whereby this Court while considering the writ petition of habeas corpus preferred by the present petitioner (for custody of his daughter/corpus), directed the corpus (Reet Dubey) to live along with her sisters namely Mohini Maheshwari and Chetana Sharma (respondents No. 4 and 5 herein). Occasion to file review arose in the wake of Writ Appeal preferred by the petitioner (father of corpus) against the order dated 22-7-2021 passed by this Court and by way of order dated 23-8-2021 passed in Writ Appeal No. 743/2021 the Writ Appellate Court remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh adjudication in view of U-turn taken by the corpus about conduct of her sisters as well as her intention to live with her father i.e. present petitioner. 2. Precisely stated facts as submitted and pleaded in the writ petition and review petition is that petitioner Kamal Kishore filed writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus, seeking direction for ensuring presence of corpus from alleged illegal confinement of respondents No. 4 and 5. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that daughter of petitioner/corpus is being kidnapped by respondents No. 4 and 5 against her will and they are not releasing her to live with petitioner, who happens to be the father of corpus. Before Writ Court, certain documents including photographs, Adhar Card, Will (notarized) dated 9-4-2021 of his alleged wife Premlata Dubey were produced and through said Will, his wife (and mother of corpus) described distribution of property including direction for corpus to live with the petitioner. Before Writ Court, certain documents including photographs, Adhar Card, Will (notarized) dated 9-4-2021 of his alleged wife Premlata Dubey were produced and through said Will, his wife (and mother of corpus) described distribution of property including direction for corpus to live with the petitioner. As submitted, petitioner and mother of corpus namely Premlata entered into wedlock after death of her husband. 4. In writ proceedings, corpus appeared before this Court through video-conferencing along with her sisters Mohini Maheshwari and Chetana Sharma. At that time, she expressed her desire to live with her sisters. Considering the submission and intention of corpus, this Court directed respondents No.4 and 5 (Mohini Maheshwari and Chetana Sharma) to keep corpus with them till she attains majority with further direction that they will take care of her overall well being including her Education and Safety. 5. It appears that petitioner was not satisfied with the order so passed therefore, preferred writ appeal vide No. 743/2021 in which she took the stand that consent of corpus taken before the Writ Court (through video-conferencing) was under undue influence and coercion and in fact she never wanted to live with her sisters because of their conduct, doubtful integrity and misbehaviour. In writ appeal, it was the specific stand of petitioner as well as corpus who appeared through videoconferencing before Writ Appellate Court that she does not want to live with her sisters and wants to live with her father (present petitioner). 6. It appears that this fact persuaded learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal to give liberty to the petitioner to file review petition to demonstrate the facts specially U-turn taken by the corpus about her intention to live with petitioner. Resultantly, learned Court gave liberty to the petitioner to reiterate the facts again before the Writ Court. Learned Writ Appellate Court also directed the petitioner to hand over custody of corpus to Child Care Center, Gwalior till the matter is decided by this Court. In pursuance thereof, custody of corpus was handed over to the Child Care Center, Vinay Nagar, Gwalior. Now petitioner has preferred this review petition. 7. Vide order dated 27-9-2021, this Court directed In-charge Superintendent of Child Care Center (Ms. Sanju Rajawat) to remain present along with corpus. Petitioner and all three sisters of corpus were also directed to remain present on 28-9-2021 at 10:30 a.m. and in pursuance thereof matter is placed today. 8. Now petitioner has preferred this review petition. 7. Vide order dated 27-9-2021, this Court directed In-charge Superintendent of Child Care Center (Ms. Sanju Rajawat) to remain present along with corpus. Petitioner and all three sisters of corpus were also directed to remain present on 28-9-2021 at 10:30 a.m. and in pursuance thereof matter is placed today. 8. Today matter was taken up at 10:30 a.m. and in-camera proceedings were held in presence of Government Advocate Shri Devendra Chaubey. Turn by turn, In-charge Child Care Center (Ms. Sanju Rajawat) and Ms. Durgesh Narwariya along with Corpus thereafter respondents No. 4 to 6, then petitioner, his mother and sister were called. Court asked the corpus about her free will. She was more than ready to go with her father. She was into tears because she was not allowed to live with her father for so many days since the order of Writ Appellate Court. Ms. Sanju Rajawat (In-charge Child Care Center) narrated the conduct of corpus and in categorical terms, she made the statement that corpus is very much inclined to live with her father Kamal Kishore because her father is not alone, he lives with her mother Ganga Bai Shakya aged 75 years and one sister Dropadi (aged around 35 years). 9. It is further informed that because of separation from her father, corpus is neither taking food properly nor she is interested in any other recreational or educational activities. As per direction of this Court given on 28-9-2021, written submission (write up/counseling report) has been given by the In-charge, Child Care Center which is placed on record. Said counseling report also indicates that corpus is much inclined to live with her father Kamal Kishore and family. In the report as well as interaction with corpus reveals startling facts about integrity, conduct and bohemian life style of her sisters specifically respondents No. 4 and 5. According to corpus, they are in relationship with many males at one time and they were compelling the corpus to interact with them and wanted to sell her out, therefore, she was petrified with the thought of living with her sisters. 10. Later on, all the three sisters were called together. They posed sorry state of affairs because respondent No. 6 –Mahima Agrawal levelled allegations against respondents No. 4 and 5 and in retaliation, respondents No. 4 and 5 showed no kindness. 10. Later on, all the three sisters were called together. They posed sorry state of affairs because respondent No. 6 –Mahima Agrawal levelled allegations against respondents No. 4 and 5 and in retaliation, respondents No. 4 and 5 showed no kindness. In short, all three were at loggerheads about their character, integrity and conduct. Respondent No. 6 wanted the corpus to live with her father because according to her, well being of corpus is with the petitioner and his family. Respondents No. 4 and 5 levelled allegations against respondent No. 6 including the allegation of illicit relationship of respondent No. 6 with petitioner. According to them, petitioner does not evoke confidence to get custody of corpus. 11. Thereafter, petitioner was called for interaction. He refuted all the charges and candidly submits that he entered into the wedlock with Premlata Dubey and from them girl Reet (corpus) conceived and she is his daughter. Petitioner lives with his mother aged 75 years and sister aged 35 years and at times, respondent No. 6-Mahima Agrawal also come to live with them. Therefore, custody of corpus be given to him. 12. Last but not the least, mother and sister of petitioner namely, Smt. Gaura Bai Shakya and Dropadi Shakya respectively were called to participate in-camera proceedings. Smt. Gaura Bai Shakya was in tears when she narrated the plight of her grand daughter (corpus) and she expressed her deep desire to get custody of her grand daughter. Dropadi Shakya (aunt of corpus) also expressed her desire to take custody of her niece (corpus). She is spinster and living with her mother and brother. She wants to take care of corpus just like her child. 13. After in-camera proceedings, matter was placed over the Board so that counsel for the parties as well as any of the parties in the Court room may advance arguments or place some new facts before the Court. 14. Counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the willingness of corpus case be considered accordingly. 15. Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Govt. Advocate submits that looking to the welfare of the child, it is imperative that appropriate directions be given so that child may not go in wrong hands and her willingness be considered accordingly. 16. 14. Counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the willingness of corpus case be considered accordingly. 15. Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Govt. Advocate submits that looking to the welfare of the child, it is imperative that appropriate directions be given so that child may not go in wrong hands and her willingness be considered accordingly. 16. Shri Rana learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 also raised doubt over the intention of petitioner and respondent No. 6 -Mahima Agrawal and prayed for dismissal of petition. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto including counseling report submitted by the Government counsel. 18. This is a case of habeas corpus where petitioner has asserted custody of corpus on the ground that corpus is his daughter, although documents appended with the petition were suggestive of the fact about his relationship with the corpus but certainly not conclusive. No such documents were placed by the respondents also to suggest otherwise about their relationship with corpus. In such circumstances, willingness and intention of corpus who appears to be 15-16 years old girl assumes importance. From the interaction with all the stakeholders and arguments of respective counsel, it appears that earlier order dated 22-7-2021 was not complied with by respondents No. 4 and 5 in toto because they were directed to take care of overall well being of corpus including Education and Safety but as per the submission of corpus, counseling report and statement of respondent No. 6 -Mahima Agrawal, it appears that respondents No. 4 and 5 did not take care of corpus properly. Allegation of selling of corpus is too stigmatic and in fact may appear devastating for corpus if allegations persist. Similarly movement of respondents No. 4 and 5 as alleged by corpus (and respondent No. 6) disentitle them to hold custody of corpus. 19. A child specially a girl child needs tender and supportive atmosphere to grow and here when corpus is also frightened with the circumstances, cannot grow as an individual if allowed to continue with respondents No. 4 and 5. 20. On the other hand, expression, intention and specific prayer of corpus indicate that she wants to live with her father Kamal Kishore. She is hellbent upon to live with her father only. 20. On the other hand, expression, intention and specific prayer of corpus indicate that she wants to live with her father Kamal Kishore. She is hellbent upon to live with her father only. That fact has been categorically noted down by the In-charge, Child Care Center in her counseling report as well as in her oral submission before this Court. 21. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, after evaluating all the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allegations and interaction with the different stakeholders, this Court accepts the submissions advanced by petitioner and his counsel and recalls the order dated 22-7-2021 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 9932/2021 and now in the interest of justice intends to dispose of this review petition in following manner : i. Corpus (Reet Dubey) shall be immediately handed over to the petitioner Kamal Kishore from Child Care Center, Vinay Nagar Gwalior and it would the duty of petitioner, his mother -Smt. Gaura Bai and sister-Dropadi Shakya to take care of corpus including her overall well being, Education and Safety. They will take care of corpus with utmost love, care and affection. ii. Till the corpus attains majority, every fortnight, the Incharge, Child Care Center, Vinay Nagar Gwalior would visit through proper lady supervisor/in-charge and will take stock of the situation about well being of corpus. SHO/Sub Inspector of Police Station Kila Gate Gwalior may also occasionally keep an eye over the well being and safety of corpus so that she may not be harmed by anybody. iii. In exceptional circumstance or event which may affect the well being and safety of corpus, if noticed by the authorities, then appropriate application shall be made by those authorities as PUD before Office of this Court and said PUD shall be listed for consideration of this Court. 22. With the aforesaid direction, review petition stands allowed and disposed of.