JUDGMENT : Om Prakash Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner no. 2- Mother with the prayer directing the respondents to produce the corpus – petitioner no. 1 (minor daughter) aged about two and a half year and custody of the corpus be handed over to petitioner no. 2- Mother. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the marriage of petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4 has been solemnized on 24.10.2019 and out of the their wedlock petitioner no. 1- Baby Amayra @ Inaya was born on 23.07.2020. Due to dowry and other marital disputes between petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4, petitioner no. 2 is living at her maternal house for last six months. Father of the petitioner no. 2 has spent about Rs. 20 lac in dowry. The husband of petitioner no. 2 is living in Lucknow and petitioner no. 2 is living at her in-laws house in Deoria. Members of matrimonial family also complained about dowry and used to torture mentally and physically. On the request of mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 went to her in-laws house with her daughter- petitioner no. 1. Birthday of the daughter was celebrated at her in-laws house. Respondent no. 4 has illegal relation with a woman in Lucknow. Members of matrimonial home assaulted her. Petitioner no. 2 is living with her daughter at her maternal home. In December, 2022 respondent no. 4 spoke to petitioner no. 2 over phone and said that both of us will stay together forgetting all the grievances. Petitioner no. 2 came under the influence of respondent no. 4 and went with her-in-laws house with husband and daughter. Next day respondent no. 4 snatched away the daughter and mobile phone of petitioner no. 2 and thrashed while hurling obscene abused and made him run away from the house threatening to kill her. The jewellery and mobile of petitioner no. 2 were also taken away. Petitioner no. 2 extremely worried for her daughter. Petitioner no. 1 is only two and a half year old. Vaccination of the child has also effected. Respondent no. 4 is an Advocate by profession residing and practicing in Lucknow. Besides the said facts various rulings has also been mentioned in the memo. 2 were also taken away. Petitioner no. 2 extremely worried for her daughter. Petitioner no. 1 is only two and a half year old. Vaccination of the child has also effected. Respondent no. 4 is an Advocate by profession residing and practicing in Lucknow. Besides the said facts various rulings has also been mentioned in the memo. The welfare of the corpus is safe in the hands of her mother- petitioner no. 2 and should be given in the custody of petitioner no. 2. Mother is the first school of child. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 admitted the fact that corpus is daughter of petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4. Petitioner no. 2 on her own will when she was working and not able to take care of corpus called upon the respondent no. 4 to take care of the child and handed over the custody of the child. Petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4 were in relationship since 2014 and thereafter with the consent of both family members, they got married in 2019. No demand of dowry has been made from the family members of respondent no. 4. Petitioner no. 2 is out of job for last six months. Petitioner no. 2 obtained a job at Noida in September 2022 and she left the corpus at her maternal place. Petitioner no. 2 had already taken away jewellery. Custody of child only be decide under Guardians and Wards Act. Habeas corpus writ petition is not maintainable. Corpus is living with her grand mother and grand father from 12.12.2022 i.e. about last five months. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance in the case of Rajeshwari ChandraSekar Ganesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 838 and Tejasvini Gaud Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tiwari and others reported in 2019 (7) SCC 42 , custody of minor child, natural guardian filed writ of habeas corpus for custody of his minor child from relatives of his wife, husband suffering from certain illness, maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy under Act No. of 1956 is available. High Court directed appellants to hand over the custody of minor child to father. Respondents are not entitled his legal custody is treated as illegal custody for the purpose of granting writ, directing the custody of child. High Court directed appellants to hand over the custody of minor child to father. Respondents are not entitled his legal custody is treated as illegal custody for the purpose of granting writ, directing the custody of child. Welfare of the child of paramount consideration, husband cannot be deprived custody of his minor child unless it is shown that he is not fit to be guardians, appellants given liberty to visit the child. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 placed reliance in the case of Shradha Kannaujia and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 716/2020 decided on 21.01.2022 in which it has been decided that appropriate remedy would lie under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. This habeas corpus writ petition is not maintainable where alternative remedy is available. Parties are muslim in the present case. 7. It is admitted fact that there is matrimonial discard between petitioner no. 2 (wife) and respondent no. 4 (husband). Petitioner no. 2 is working lady in Noida and her financial position is sufficient for the nourishment of the corpus. Respondent no. 4 is also practicing as Advocate in Lucknow and corpus is with grand father and grand mother in Deoria for last five months. Corpus is aged about two and a half year. She is in need of love and affection by her mother who is natural guardian. Custody and welfare of the corpus is well protected in the hands of her mother and in the interest of justice the custody of corpus should be handed over to petitioner no. 2- mother. 8. This habeas corpus writ petition is disposed of with a direction that respondent no. 4 shall hand over the custody of child to petitioner no. 2- Rozi Bano (mother) on 14.05.2023 at 10:00 a.m. at the residence of petitioner no. 2. Keeping in view in the interest of child both parties shall cooperate with each other in compliance of the direction of the court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent no. 4 being father is entitled for visitation rights. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2020 (Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 7390 of 2019) wherein in paragraph nos. 9, 19 and 21 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "9. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent no. 4 being father is entitled for visitation rights. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2020 (Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 7390 of 2019) wherein in paragraph nos. 9, 19 and 21 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to urge that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable if the child is in the custody of another parent. The law in this regard has developed a lot over a period of time but now it is a settled position that the court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the best interest of the child. This has been done in Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Ors., Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. and Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali among others. In all these cases, the writ petitions were entertained. Therefore, we reject the contention of the appellant wife that the writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan was not maintainable. 19. 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. 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. 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. 21. 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." 10. However, respondent no. 4- Akib @ Prince (father) is given visiting right with the petitioner no. 1 Baby Amayra @ Inaya (corpus) twice in a month on Sunday, holiday and birthday at the house of petitioner no. 2 peacefully along with the demand draft of Rs. 3,000/- in the name of corpus- Baby Amayra @ Inaya for her welfare. Petitioner no. 2 shall follow courtesy.