JUDGMENT 1. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the father of the minor corpus who has been alleged to be in illegal detention of respondents No. 4 to 7. 2. It has been averred in the petition that the respondents No. 4 to 7 claimed an amount of Rs. 4,02,000/- from the petitioner for releasing his daughter which was paid by him to them. Further they again demanded an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and when the same was not paid, they refused to release his daughter from their detention. 3. The corpus 'S' was presented today before this Court by the concerned police officers. On interaction with her in camera, the corpus candidly stated that she is residing with her uncle, aunt and grandmother out of her own free will and volition. She also stated that she has not been illegally detained by anyone and she has been residing with her uncle's family for last more than 10 years. She emphatically stated that she does not wish to go to her father's place and wishes to reside with her grandmother and uncle's family only. 4. We also conversed with the grandmother of the minor corpus. The grandmother stated that she resides with both of her sons in turns and the minor girl is residing with her uncle's family only since last 10 years. She also stated that the minor girl has been living happily with her uncle and aunt right from her childhood. 5. We also conversed with the parents of the minor girl. After interacting with them, the fact of illegal detention by respondents No. 4 to 7 prima facie seems to be incorrect. Father of the corpus failed to explain as to why he paid the amount to the respondents who are in no matter related to the fact of residing of the minor at her uncle's place. 6. Therefore, it is clear that the corpus has not been illegally detained by anyone as alleged in the petition. The corpus is residing with her uncle's family from last 10 years on her own free will and volition. 7. True it is that the natural guardian of the minor is his father but as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the paramount consideration of the Court would be the welfare of the minor. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. 7. True it is that the natural guardian of the minor is his father but as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the paramount consideration of the Court would be the welfare of the minor. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Ors. [ (2019) 7 SCC 42 ] while considering the earlier judgment of Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo [ (2011) 6 SCC 479 ] held as under: "58. Proceedings in the nature of habeas corpus are summary in nature, where the legality of the detention of the alleged detenue is examined on the basis of affidavits placed by the parties. Even so, nothing prevents the High Court from embarking upon a detailed enquiry in cases where the welfare of a minor is in question, which is the paramount consideration for the Court while exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction. A High Court may, therefore, invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction to determine the validity of the detention, in cases that fall within its jurisdiction and may also issue orders as to custody of the minor depending upon how the court views the rival claims, if any, to such custody." 8. In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the specific opinion that there is no illegal detention of the minor corpus by anyone and therefore, the present habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained by this Court. However, it would be open for father of the minor girl to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum for the custody of the child if he wishes to do so. 9. With the above observations, the present habeas corpus petition is disposed of.