Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 103 (ALL)

Surekha Saxena v. State Of U. P.

2023-01-11

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of habeas corpus with averment that petitioner no. 1 is grandmother of corpus (Ankur) on whose behalf petition has been filed. 3. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no. 4 is mother of petitioner no. 2 (corpus). The corpus is son of respondent no. 4 namely Rimjhim w/o Amit Saxena. The corpus is born out of wedlock of respondent no. 4 and her husband Amit Saxena. The corpus born on 24.8.2014 in Singapur in presence of his parents who was named as Ankur. The marriage of Amit Saxena, who is s/o petitioner no. 1, and respondent no. 4 was arrange marriage which was solemnized on 30.1.2013 after the couple embarked on honeymoon and first visited Bankok and subsequently Singapur where corpus took birth. After birth of child, the couple return to India on 4.10.2014. Their return ticket to Singapur was scheduled for 15.11.2014 but respondent no. 4 did not join her husband in return journey to Singapur. Her ticket was extended twice but she refused to go back to Singapur to live along with son of petitioner no. 1 and retained the corpus in her custody as she refused to go back to Singapur along with corpus to join her husband and custody of corpus become illegal on that count. Thereafter relations between husband and wife became strained. Husband of the respondent no. 4 came to India on 24.8.2015 and persuaded respondent no. 4 to come along with Ankur to her parental place to celebrate birthday of corpus but she refused. Matter between husband and wife was referred to mediation. A suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by husband of respondent no. 4 in Family Court, Singapur in which decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on 28.11.2017. The husband of respondent no. 4 was directed to pay regular maintenance to the corpus on monthly basis. Joint custody of the corpus was ordered by Family Court, Singapur in favour of both the biological parents. As decree was not complied by respondent no. 4 in Family Court, Singapur in which decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on 28.11.2017. The husband of respondent no. 4 was directed to pay regular maintenance to the corpus on monthly basis. Joint custody of the corpus was ordered by Family Court, Singapur in favour of both the biological parents. As decree was not complied by respondent no. 4, her husband filed an execution petition before Indian Court under Section 44-A C.P.C. seeking an execution of decree passed by Singapur court. However, in which respondent no. 4 appeared and said execution was dismissed on 30.7.2019 in default. In 2020, marriage of brother of respondent no. 4 Rajat Mowar took place in which proximity of respondent no. 4 with one Abhishek Chaudhary (respondent no. 7) was observed in some photographs provided by Priya Chaudhary, who has been junior to Rimijhim while her studies in S.R.M. Institute and Engineering College, Chennai, in B.Tech/Bio-tech course. In fact Rimjhim solemnized second marriage with said Abhishek Chaudhary on 1.12.2020 in Lucknow and reception was organized on 3.12.2020 at S.S. Palace, Gorakhpur. As the mother of corpus has entered in second marriage, the welfare of corpus in custody of his biological mother is not safe and Priya Chaudhary, bhabhi of respondent no. 4, had witnessed that corpus is being ill-treated by respondents. These facts are narrated by her in a petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court, Delhi on 10.9.2021. Despite the fact that father of corpus is paying Rs. 16,500/- approximate to the corpus for maintenance as per decree of Singapur Court, however, corpus is not being educated by the respondents in proper manner and he has been admitted in poor standard school in Kanpur. On account of strained relations between respondent no. 4 and her husband, bright prospect of corpus is in peril and in absence of custody of corpus, his grandmother, who is highly educated and resourceful old lady, is helpless to extend helping hand to him. The corpus is even unable to recognize his grandparents and he is deprived of the love and affection of his grandparents at the instance of respondents. The corpus is aged about 8 years of age and keeping his age, he is not in dire need of protection by biological mother. Petitioner no. The corpus is even unable to recognize his grandparents and he is deprived of the love and affection of his grandparents at the instance of respondents. The corpus is aged about 8 years of age and keeping his age, he is not in dire need of protection by biological mother. Petitioner no. 1 is his grandmother and physically fit and economically well off to take him into her custody and take care of his educational and other needs, therefore it is prayed that a writ order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus be issued directing the State-respondents to set free the corpus from private respondents and hand him over to custody of petitioner no. 1, keeping in view the paramount consideration of welfare of corpus. 5. On the other hand prayer made in the petition has been vehemently opposed by private respondents and submitted that respondent no. 4, who is mother of corpus, has never contracted second marriage with Abhishek Chaudhary i.e. respondent no. 7, who is her familiar friend and not her second husband. Respondent no. 4 has not decided till date to marry with respondent no. 7 or any person. Respondent no. 4 being mother of corpus is her natural guardian and is able to take full care of her son. Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, husband of petitioner no. 1, has filed a false complaint before S.S.P., Agra against respondent no. 4 with a view to harass her. Corpus is being extremely well accordingly and in his co-curricular activities under guidance of his mother, who is respected teacher in Kanpur. Corpus is not in illegal custody of private respondents. It is further submitted that marriage of parents of corpus took place on 30.1.2013. Respondent no. 4 was working in Multi National Company. At that time she was harassed by petitioner no. 1 and her husband for demand of additional dowry. When couple were in Singapur after marriage, respondent no. 4 came to know that her husband was in relation with some lady and when she raised her concern about that, she was physically abused by her husband. Petitioner no. 1 also visited Singapur and physically abused the respondent no. 4 and threatened her. When couple were in Singapur after marriage, respondent no. 4 came to know that her husband was in relation with some lady and when she raised her concern about that, she was physically abused by her husband. Petitioner no. 1 also visited Singapur and physically abused the respondent no. 4 and threatened her. She was constantly tortured by her parents-in-law and by her husband just after marriage due to which she was compelled to live in company of her husband and at present she is residing in Kanpur at her paternal place. The corpus is making good progress in academic and other activities in his school at Kanpur. These facts are elaborately stated in counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents and learned A.G.A. submitted that as the corpus is lying in custody of his mother, it cannot be said illegal custody and claim of petitioner no. 1 being grandmother of corpus for transfer of custody from his mother to her is unfounded and without any legal justification. The alternative prayer of petitioner no. 1 for visitation rights of the corpus is also not liable to be granted to her in the facts and circumstances, keeping in view the status of petitioner no. 1 with the child and fact that she is residing in Agra, which is away from the place where corpus is residing. Welfare of the minor may be jeopardized even if the visitation rights are granted to petitioner no. 1. She is having great animosity with the mother of the child. 7. Habeas corpus "ad subjiciendum" means "that you have the body to submit or answer" which is called as Festinum Remedium -A speedy remedy, which has been sought by the petitioner in this instant case. 8. Habeas Corpus is Latin for "you have the body". The writ is referred to in full in legal texts as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum or more rarely ad subjiciendum et recipiendum. It is sometimes described as the "great writ". It is considered as a most expeditious remedy available under the law. 9. The meaning of the term habeas corpus is "you must have the body". The writ is referred to in full in legal texts as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum or more rarely ad subjiciendum et recipiendum. It is sometimes described as the "great writ". It is considered as a most expeditious remedy available under the law. 9. The meaning of the term habeas corpus is "you must have the body". Halsbury in his Laws of England, 4th Edition, observed as follows:- "The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum which is commonly known as the writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from the unlawful or unjustifiable detention whether in prison or in private custody. It is a prerogative writ by which the queen has a right to inquire into the laws for which any of her subjects are deprived of their liberty." 10. In Corpus Juris Secundum, the nature of the writ of habeas corpus is summarized thus:- "The writ of habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designate time and place with the day and cause of his caption and detention to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. 'Habeas corpus' literally means "have the body". By this writ, the court can direct to have the body of the person detained to be brought before it in order to ascertain whether the detention is legal or illegal. Such is the predominant position of the writ in the Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence." 11. Lord Halsbury LC in Cox v. Hates, (1890) 15 AC 506, held that "the right to an instant determination as to lawfulness of an existing imprisonment" is the substantial right made available by this writ. 12. Likewise in Barnardo v. Ford, (1862) AC 326, the writ of habeas corpus has been described as a writ of right which is to be granted ex debito justitiae. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he shows such a case and the return is not good and sufficient he is entitled to this writ as a matter of right. 13. In R. v. Secy. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he shows such a case and the return is not good and sufficient he is entitled to this writ as a matter of right. 13. In R. v. Secy. of State for Home Affairs (1941) 3 All ER 104, 105, it has been held that a person is not entitled to be released on a petition of habeas corpus if there is no illegal restraint. "The question for a habeas corpus court is whether the subject is lawfully detained. If he is, the writ cannot issue, if he is not, it must issue." 14. Likewise in Cox v. Hakes, (1890) 15 AC 506 (HL), it has been held that the writ of habeas corpus is an effective means of immediate release from unlawful detention, whether in prison or private custody. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute detention. Control and custody are sufficient. 15. A Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others, (1973) 2 SCC 674 , traced the history, nature and scope of the writ of habeas corpus. It has been held by Their Lordships that it is a writ of immemorial antiquity whose first threads are woven deeply "within the seamless web of history and untraceable among countless incidents that constituted a total historical pattern of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence". Their Lordships further held that the primary object of this writ is the immediate determination of the right of the applicant's freedom and that was its substance and its end. Their Lordships further explaining the nature and scope of a writ of habeas corpus held as under: - "The writ of habeas corpus is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. Their Lordships further explaining the nature and scope of a writ of habeas corpus held as under: - "The writ of habeas corpus is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a command addressed to a person who is alleged to have another person unlawfully in his custody requiring him to bring the body of such person before the Court, but the production of the body of the person detained is directed in order that the circumstances of his detention may be inquired into, or to put it differently, "in the order that appropriate judgment be rendered on judicial enquiry into the alleged unlawful restrain". But the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of his detention enquired into and determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness. The essential and leading theory of the whole procedure is the immediate determination of the right to the applicant's freedom and his release, if the detention is found to be unlawful. That is the primary purpose of the writ, that is its substance and end. The production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained is ancillary to this main purpose of the writ. It is merely a means for achieving the end which is to secure the liberty of the subject illegally detained." 16. Therefore, on the basis of above cited judicial precedents, it can be said that habeas corpus is not liable to be issued. As a matter of course, it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course and the applicant must show prima facie case of his unlawful detention. The writ can only be issued on establishing clear and specified grounds which are legally tenable. Writ of habeas corpus is a process by which a person, who is confined without legal justification may secure a release from his confinement. The writ can only be issued on establishing clear and specified grounds which are legally tenable. Writ of habeas corpus is a process by which a person, who is confined without legal justification may secure a release from his confinement. The writ is, in form, an order issued by the High Court calling upon the person by whom a person is alleged to be kept in confinement to bring such person before the court and to let the court know on what ground the person is confined. If the petitioner succeeds to convince the court that there is no legal justification for detention, the person will be ordered to be released, however, the production of the body (corpus) of the person alleged to be unlawfully detained is not essential before final hearing and disposal of a petition for issuing writ of habeas corpus. 17. In Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State of NCT of Delhi and others (2017) 8 SCC 454 , it has been observed by the Apex Court: "44. The present appeal emanates from a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production and custody of a minor child. This Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 247 , has held that habeas corpus was essentially a procedural writ dealing with machinery of justice. The object underlying the writ was to secure the release of a person who is illegally deprived of his liberty. The writ of habeas corpus is a command addressed to the person who is alleged to have another in unlawful custody, requiring him to produce the body of such person before the Court. On production of the person before the Court, the circumstances in which the custody of the person concerned has been detained can be inquired into by the Court and upon due inquiry into the alleged unlawful restraint pass appropriate direction as may be deemed just and proper. The High Court in such proceedings conducts an inquiry for immediate determination of the right of the person's freedom and his release when the detention is found to be unlawful 45. In a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in relation to the custody of a minor child, this Court in Sayed Saleemmuddin v. Dr. The High Court in such proceedings conducts an inquiry for immediate determination of the right of the person's freedom and his release when the detention is found to be unlawful 45. In a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in relation to the custody of a minor child, this Court in Sayed Saleemmuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana and Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 247 , has held that the principal duty of the Court is to ascertain whether the custody of child is unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person. While doing so, the paramount consideration must be about the welfare of the child. In the case of Mrs. Elizabeth (supra), it is held that in such cases the matter must be decided not by reference to the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interests and welfare of the minor. The role of the High Court in examining the cases of custody of a minor is on the touchstone of principle of parens patriae jurisdiction, as the minor is within the jurisdiction of the Court (see Paul Mohinder Gahun Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2004) 113 Delhi Law Time 823, relied upon by the appellant). It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on this proposition. 47. In a habeas corpus petition as aforesaid, the High Court must examine at the threshold whether the minor is in lawful or unlawful custody of another person (private respondent named in the writ petition). For considering that issue, in a case such as the present one, it is enough to note that the private respondent was none other than the natural guardian of the minor being her biological mother. Once that fact is ascertained, it can be presumed that the custody of the minor with his/her mother is lawful. In such a case, only in exceptionable situation, the custody of the minor (girl child) may be ordered to be taken away from her mother for being given to any other person including the husband (father of the child), in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In such a case, only in exceptionable situation, the custody of the minor (girl child) may be ordered to be taken away from her mother for being given to any other person including the husband (father of the child), in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Instead, the other parent can be asked to resort to a substantive prescribed remedy for getting custody of the child." 18. Further, in Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana and Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 247 , it has been observed by the Supreme Court: "11. From the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases it is clear that in an application seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for custody of minor children the principal consideration for the Court is to ascertain whether the custody of the children can be said to be unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the children requires that present custody should be changed and the children should be left in care and custody of somebody else. The principle is well settled that in a matter of custody of a child the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration of the Court. Unfortunately, the Judgment of the High Court does not show that the Court has paid any attention to these important and relevant questions. The High Court has not considered whether the custody of the children with their father can, in the facts and circumstances, be said to be unlawful. The Court has also not adverted to the question whether for the welfare of the children they should be taken out of the custody of their father and left in the care of their mother. However, it is not necessary for us to consider this question further in view of the fair concession made by Shri M.N. Rao that the appellant has no objection if the children remain in the custody of the mother with the right of the father to visit them as noted in the judgment of the High Court, till the Family Court disposes of the petition filed by the appellant for custody of his children." 19. Learned counsel for the private respondent cited a pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others Vs. Learned counsel for the private respondent cited a pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, (2019) 7 SCC 42 , where it was held that petition of habeas corpus would be maintainable where detention by parents or others is found to be illegal and without any authority of law and extraordinary remedy of a prerogative writ of habeas corpus can be availed in exceptional cases where ordinary remedy provided by the law is either unavailable or ineffective. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in this judgment are extracted as under:- "14. Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child. For restoration of the custody of a minor from a person who according to the personal law, is not his legal or natural guardian, in appropriate cases, the writ court has jurisdiction. xxxx 19. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. 20. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. 20. In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the court exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is of summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus." 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the averments made in petition and his statements cited, has placed reliance in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 67 , in which Hon’ble Apex Court in an inter country custody case of minor child where wife brought her minor child to India from U.S.A. in violation of U.S.A. court’s order, it was held that the custody of child cannot be said to be strictly legal. However, in opinion of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court could not have directed the appellant wife to go to the U.S.A.. The wife is an adult and no court can force her to stay at a place where she does not want to stay. However, in opinion of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court could not have directed the appellant wife to go to the U.S.A.. The wife is an adult and no court can force her to stay at a place where she does not want to stay. Custody of child is a different issue, but even while deciding the issue of custody of a child, no direction can be issued to the adult spouse to go and live with the other strained spouse in writ jurisdiction. Welfare of child is the paramount consideration While deciding matters of custody of child, primary and paramount consideration is welfare of child. If welfare of the child so demands, then technical objections cannot come in the way. However, while deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. Courts should decide the issue of custody only on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. (Para 20 The child is the victim in custody battles. In this fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and litigations between two spouses, our experience shows that more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain and he or she alone is entitled to the custody of the child. The court must therefore be very vary of what is said by each of the spouses. (Para 21) A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Every separation, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents. (Para 22 and 23) Normally, if the parents are living in the same town or area, the spouse who has not been granted custody is given visitation rights over weekends only. In case the spouses are living at a distance from each other, it may not be feasible or in the interest of the child to create impediments in the education of the child by frequent breaks and, in such cases the visitation rights must be given over long weekends, breaks, and holidays. In cases like the present one where the parents are in two different continents effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody. (Para 24) 21. On given thoughtful consideration of above cited judicial precedents, it cannot be stated on facts and circumstances of the case that petitioner no. In cases like the present one where the parents are in two different continents effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody. (Para 24) 21. On given thoughtful consideration of above cited judicial precedents, it cannot be stated on facts and circumstances of the case that petitioner no. 1 has successfully established a prima facie case that the detention of corpus with his mother is illegal or unlawful and the legal position is that only on establishment of proximity fact that detention of the corpus in the hand of respondent is unlawful, the applicant would become entitled to the writ of habeas corpus filed for custody of corpus, in most of the cases a minor child. The principal consideration for the court would be to ascertain whether the custody of the child can be said to be unlawful, illegal and also whether child should be handed over in the care and custody of someone else. The prerogative writ of habeas corpus, is in the nature of extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued, where in the circumstances of a particular case, the ordinary remedy provided under law is either not available or is ineffective. It is apparent that remedy in child custody matters would normally lie under provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Wards Act, 1890 depending on facts situation of the case. 22. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in considered opinion of this Court if the balance is to be struck between mother (respondent no. 4) and grandmother (petitioner no. 1), the balance would certainly tilt in favour of mother, who is respondent no. 4. However, I may not be mis-understood that the grandmother may not take proper care of minor, who is her grand son, therefore, custody of corpus with his mother can in no way be said to be illegal, unlawful and the child has always been remained with the custody of his mother and was never at any point of time in the custody of petitioner no. 1, therefore, no case of transfer of custody from mother of the corpus to his grandmother is made out. 1, therefore, no case of transfer of custody from mother of the corpus to his grandmother is made out. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the aspirations and expectations of grandmother to visit and see her grand child and shower her love and affection on him, cannot be ignored and the same must be dealt with a humanitarian hand in respect of the fact that allegation and counter allegations are made by petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 against each other and father of the child is some what out of picture in present petition. Thus, although the prayer of petitioner no. 1 for issuing writ of habeas corpus against respondents and transfer of custody of corpus, who is eight year old child of respondent no. 4 and her husband, in favour of his grandmother, is declined and refused by this Court on the basis of discussion mentioned above. In my considered opinion, petitioner no. 1 shall have a visitation rights over the child (petitioner no. 2). However, this Court directs respondent no. 4 to provide a right to meet the corpus to petitioner no. 1, who is his grandmother on regular basis preferably once in a month subject to convenience of the child, on a holiday, with prior arrangement made by respondent no. 4, by way of telephonic consultation with petitioner no. 1, who is her mother-in-law, at the place of choice of respondent no. 4. The period of meeting of each day may include a period of three to six hours at a time, however, the meeting in a month may be postponed if the examinations of child are underway or on card. The meeting may be supervised by respondent no. 4 to her discretion. 23. With the above observations, petition is finally disposed of.