ORDER 1. Petitioners have preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of corpus who happens to be grandson of the petitioners. 2. Corpus is present before the Court. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that corpus is a child suffering from muscular dystrophy which requires special treatment. It is also contended that respondent No.5-mother is not having sufficient means to provide the said treatment to the corpus. It is further contended that in this type of ailment, the average age of the child is just 20 years and if proper treatment is given, the average age of child may go upto 30 years. It is contended that after filing of the present habeas corpus petition, respondent No.5 has written letter to Prime Minister on 09.11.2022 and is trying to make up a case that proper care is being given to the corpus. 4. Petitioner No.1 present in person in the Court has stated that they are ready to bear the medical expenses of the child. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has contended that petitioners are harassing respondent No.5 by filing complaints at different places and also making complaints to the owner of the house where respondent No.5 is staying as tenant. They have also filed complaint before Child Welfare Committee, Karauli and Child Welfare Committee, Karauli vide order dated 18.11.2022 has passed an order in favour of respondent No.5-mother. It is contended that similar allegations are levelled in the present habeas corpus petition which were levelled before Child Welfare Committee, Karauli. It is also contended that respondent No.5 mother of the child is a lecturer who is doing her best for treatment of her child. 6. We have considered the contentions. 7. The scope of habeas corpus petition is very limited. Admittedly, respondent No.5-mother is only natural guardian who is entitled for custody of the child after demise of father of the child. Respondent No.5 is a lecturer who is taking best care of the child. On complaint filed by the petitioners, the matter was taken up before Child Welfare Committee, Karauli and Child Welfare Committee, Karauli vide order dated 18.11.2022 has directed respondent No.5-mother to take proper care of the child and the said order has not been challenged. 8. Respondent No.5 is a lecturer who is taking best care of the child. On complaint filed by the petitioners, the matter was taken up before Child Welfare Committee, Karauli and Child Welfare Committee, Karauli vide order dated 18.11.2022 has directed respondent No.5-mother to take proper care of the child and the said order has not been challenged. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State of Gujarat & Ors., passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.898/2022. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the above judgment as in that case, the custody of the corpus was handed over to maternal aunt of the corpus in place of paternal grandparents whereas, present is a case where custody is with the mother of the corpus and mother being natural guardian is capable of looking after the corpus. 9. We are of the considered view that the corpus is not in any illegal detention and respondent No.5-mother is natural guardian of the child who is taking proper care of the child. If the petitioners so wishes they are free to give financial help to respondent No.5 for medical treatment of the child. 10. Considering the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present habeas corpus petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 11. As per directions of the Court, a demand draft of Rs.50,000/-was deposited by the petitioners with Registrar(Judicial) drawn in favour of Registrar(General) Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Registrar(Judicial) is directed to prepare a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in name of respondent No.5-Pooja Singh and the same be handed over to respondent No.5 forthwith as cost of litigation.