JUDGMENT : N.K. Chandravanshi, J. 1. By means of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer that respondents be directed to release the wife/respondent No. 1 and their daughter - Manya from wrongful restrain of respondents. 2. The petitioner's marriage was solemnized with respondent No. 1 -Smt. Ritu Suhane on 2.2.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. On 23.7.2014, they were blessed with one daughter, namely, Manya. But as per averments made in the petition, due to unnecessary interference of family members of maternal side of respondent No. 1, she used to go to her maternal home frequently, from where petitioner brought her back. But on 28.11.2016, respondent No. 1 alongwith her daughter baby Manya left her matrimonial home on her own will, and thereafter, residing with her parents. Since beginning the petitioner is having love & affection for his wife and daughter but respondent No. 1/wife, without any sufficient and valid reasons, has deprived him from his marital and parental right. It is further stated that despite granting visiting rights to the petitioner to meet his daughter by the Court vide order dated 20.11.2018, respondents did not allow him to meet his daughter. Even she did not permit the petitioner to talk over telephone with his daughter and respondents No. 2 to 4 are pressurising respondent No. 1 to seek divorce from the petitioner. The petitioner made numerous attempts to bring his wife and daughter back. Even he has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur but he did not succeed to bring them back, and therefore, he has filed the instant habeas corpus petition. 3. Petitioner appearing in person would submit that his wife (respondent No. 1 herein) has left her matrimonial home alongwith their daughter without any sufficient and valid reasons and she has filed the cases under Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth "Act, 2005") against him and also for getting maintenance, in the Court of Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.), which has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. He would further submit that vide order dated 20.11.2018, he has been granted visiting right from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. on every Friday to meet his daughter by the Court, but he has never been allowed by respondents to meet his daughter. He would also submit that respondents have deprived him to show his love and affection for his daughter since last six years. Even respondents do not permit him to talk to his daughter over phone. Due to inducement made by his in-laws, respondent No. 1/wife is harassing him by keeping away from matrimonial and parental enjoyment. The respondents are creating pressure for divorce, so that they could get handsome alimony from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has filed reply-affidavit and while referring to the same, he would raise preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of habeas corpus petition contending that it is a dispute between husband and wife, and continuous harassment and cruelty were meted out by the petitioner to respondent No. 1/wife and on 28.11.2016, he badly beat the respondent No. 1 and threw them i.e. respondent No. 1 and their daughter baby Manya from his home, and therefore, respondent No. 1 informed the police of Police Station Azad Nagar, Raipur and went to her parental home along with her daughter baby Manya. He further contended that in the present fact situation of the case, habeas corpus petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner wants custody of his daughter and conjugal rights, then in that regard, efficacious remedy is available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890/Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which petitioner has already availed before the competent court of Raipur/Bhopal. Even respondent No. 1/wife herself has filed case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner, which is pending consideration before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begamganj, District Raisen (M.P.) and execution proceedings for maintenance is also pending between them. It is further contended that petitioner has been granted visiting rights from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. on every Friday by the Court of Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.) to meet his daughter baby Manya but except for one occasion, neither he has availed his visiting rights nor has filed any application before the concerning court with regard to deprivation of his right. Instead, he has chosen to file this habeas corpus petition to release his wife and daughter from alleged wrongful restrain of the respondents. But he did not make any averment in his petition who and in what manner, had restrained his wife and daughter. He has also not made the State Government as a party respondent in this habeas corpus petition. Therefore, this habeas corpus petition is not maintainable on this count also. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that soon after marriage, petitioner started harassing and torturing the respondent No. 1/wife in connection with demand of dowry. Petitioner and his family members were also not happy on the birth of female child baby Manya, as they wanted a male child. Due to harassment and humiliation meted out by the petitioner and his family members and also ousting her from their home along with her two year old daughter, she is residing with her parents in Bhopal, who are taking full care and well being of respondent No. 1/wife and her daughter. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application before the Family Court, Bhopal under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of his daughter baby Manya, which has been registered as MJC GW 40/2019. He has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending consideration before the Family Court, Raipur. Respondent No. 1/wife has filed an application under Section 21 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner, in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.), before whom execution of maintenance amount is also pending. Thus, various cases are pending between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 before the various courts. More so, issue of custody of baby Manya could be very well decided in the case filed by the petitioner under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before Family Court, Bhopal, and therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case also, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as sought for by him, in this habeas corpus petition. 6. 6. In reply, referring to the rejoinder-affidavit, petitioner in person would submit that, on the preliminary objection relating to lack of jurisdiction raised by him, case of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.) for want of jurisdiction. He would further submit that he has filed an application before the Family Court, Bhopal for withdrawal of his case filed under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (but he has not filed any document with regard to aforesaid contention). He further contended that allegations of cruelty meted out by the petitioner in connection with demand of dowry on the respondents is found false and baseless by the police, therefore, no offence has been registered against the petitioner. He has also denied that he was not happy on the birth of female child Manya. It is further submitted that there is no dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 1/wife but respondents No. 2 to 4 are restraining him to meet his wife and daughter baby Manya, and therefore, preliminary objection raised by respondents is without any merit. 7. We have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case respondent No. 1/wife of petitioner along with her daughter Manya, aged about 7 ½ year are residing with her parents in Bhopal (M.P.). On 25.01.2022, respondent No. 1 and their daughter baby Manya had appeared before this Court through video-conferencing from Bhopal. We have interacted with them for a fairly long time. While interacting, respondent No. 1 told that she along with her minor daughter baby Manya are residing in Bhopal with her parents on her own will and wishes and presently Baby Manya Suhane is studying in class-II. Respondent No. 1 also told that she takes tuition of children to earn her livelihood and her parents are taking care and well being of her and her daughter also. She also told that they do not want to reside with the petitioner because once she tried to settle the matter and went back to her matrimonial home, but the petitioner did not change his behaviour towards them, and therefore, she does not feel safe to reside with the petitioner. 9. She also told that they do not want to reside with the petitioner because once she tried to settle the matter and went back to her matrimonial home, but the petitioner did not change his behaviour towards them, and therefore, she does not feel safe to reside with the petitioner. 9. As per contention made by both the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has filed case against the respondent No. 1/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Family Court, Raipur (C.G.); he has also filed an application, registered as MJC No. GW 40/2019 for custody of his daughter baby Manya in the Family Court, Bhopal. Respondent No. 1/wife has filed a case against the petitioner under Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begumganj, District Raisen (M.P.). According to the counsel for the respondents, execution of maintenance case is also pending between them. Thus, it is clear that various cases including custody of baby Manya is pending between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. 10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 1/wife along with her daughter baby Manya are residing with her parents on her own will and wishes. It is also not disputed that petitioner and respondent No. 1 both are husband and wife and baby Manya Suhane, aged about 7 ½ year is their daughter and she (Manya Suhane) is in safe custody of her natural guardian mother i.e. respondent No. 1. With regard to the reasons for living separately from each other, petitioner and respondent No. 1 have made allegations and counter allegations against each other. Since a case is pending between them, hence, their matrimonial/conjugal right could be decided by the Family Court, Raipur in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 11. So far as custody of baby Manya is concerned, she is in safe custody of her natural guardian mother i.e. respondent No. 1 and except mother, no-one is best protector of the interest and well being of a girl aging about 7 ½ year as baby Manya is at present. 11. So far as custody of baby Manya is concerned, she is in safe custody of her natural guardian mother i.e. respondent No. 1 and except mother, no-one is best protector of the interest and well being of a girl aging about 7 ½ year as baby Manya is at present. The petitioner has not produced any material on record to show that respondents No. 2 to 4 had detained the respondent No. 1/wife and respondent No. 1/wife has detained her daughter, baby Manya, illegally, in violation of the any court's order. In absence of the orders passed by any of the Courts, custody of minor daughter with the mother cannot be held to be unlawful. Petitions for habeas corpus are filed for the person, for whose release the petition is filed, must be in 'detention' by the authorities or by any private individual. It is the 'detention', legal or illegal, which gives a cause of action for maintaining the writ of habeas corpus. In this case, as has been stated above that respondent No. 1/wife is residing with her parents along with her daughter baby Manya on her own will and wishes, which cannot be held to be unlawful or illegal detention. If there is any grievance against respondents with regard to right of custody of baby Manya, in all fairness, petitioner could have filed petition seeking custody of baby Manya before the Family Court, which is said to have already been filed by him. Although, the petitioner has submitted that he has filed an application before the Family Court, Bhopal for withdrawal of petition filed by him for custody of baby Manya under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 but he has not submitted any document to show that the aforesaid case has been withdrawn by him. Assuming that it is so, it is not understood why the petition was withdrawn. 12. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has prayed for direction to release his wife (respondent No. 1) and his minor daughter Manya from wrongful restrain of respondents but he has not made any averments in this writ petition that how and in what manner respondents have restrained them. 13. In view of above, we find that instant habeas corpus petition as framed and filed is not maintainable. Hence, instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 13. In view of above, we find that instant habeas corpus petition as framed and filed is not maintainable. Hence, instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is set at liberty to avail the remedy under the law for redressal of his grievances.