JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondent No.1 to produce the petitioner (detenue) and also permit and fix at least one meeting in a week of the petitioner with her Grand Father (Dada) and Grand Mother (Dadi). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deponent is the grand father of the child (detenue) and the son of the deponent is working in the Indian Navy. He also submitted that it is also undisputed that the son of the deponent has filed for divorce against the respondent No.1 which is going on. In such circumstances, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary and the deponent being the grand father of the child (detenue) along with her wife (grand mother of the child) may be allowed to meet the child (detenue) who is in custody of the respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that respondent No.1 is the mother of the petitioner (detenue) and she is her natural guardian, therefore, the present petition of habeas corpus is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has also informed that the respondent No.1 has already lodged the F.I.R. No. 1128 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 380 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow against four accused persons for her victimization due to demand of dowry. He also submitted that in the aforesaid case, after investigation charge sheet has been filed against Swapnil Srivastava (husband of respondent No.1), Sunil Srivastava (father-in-law of respondent No.1) and Suman Srivastava (mother-in-law of respondent No.1) and trial is pending before the court concerned. He also submitted that the court below has tried for mediation in the aforesaid case, but the mediation failed due to act of the husband of respondent No.1. 6. He also submitted that the court below has tried for mediation in the aforesaid case, but the mediation failed due to act of the husband of respondent No.1. 6. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, it is evident that the respondent No.1 is natural guardian of the alleged child (detenue) and the detenue is aged about 5 years and is a girl child. In such circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Respondent No.1 need not to appear before this Court in future. 9. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 10. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.