ORDER Smt. Yadav, J. -- 1. Heard on I.A. No. 8875/2024, an application for psycho analysis of the child master Agastya Gupta. 2. The present habeas corpus petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to produce the Petitioner 's son before this Court and to direct return of his son to United States with the petitioner who happens to be the father with whom vests his sole custody by virtue of the order dated 4t h April, 2023 passed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while determining and adjudicating the question of custody of child, the best interest of the child is the primary and sole concern. In this endeavour, though the wishes of the child are not decisive, yet, the same plays an important role in such determination. Learned counsel further submits that the reason for preferring the instant application is that the over the last few weeks, the Petitioner has tried to contact/ communicate with his son over video-call(s) in pursuance of directions issued by the Ld. Family Court, Sehore in MJCR 114 of 2023 & MJC R 224 of 2023, wherein by order dated 31st May 2024, the Learned Court granted the Petitioner child access, and directed the Respondent No.2 herein (Wife of the Petitioner) to ensure that the petitioner is able to speak with the child over phone/ video-call. 4. Learned counsel further submits that over the course of three months since the directions are issued by the Family Court, Sehore, the petitioner tried, attempted to speak with his son, but felt a distinct coldness and reluctance on the part of his son, to speak with him. It is submitted that despite the best efforts of the Petitioner, his son, evades and refuses to communicate with him. It appears that the son of the petitioner, who is at the tender age of 9 years, harbors ill-will and negative impression about his father (the petitioner herein). Learned counsel further submits that Age 9 is such a tender age for a child that the child does not sufficiently develop the capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision and refusing talk to his father. Moreover, harboring negative emotions against his father are clearly a result of parental alienation by the mother and indicates to 'malicious parental syndrome'. 5. Moreover, harboring negative emotions against his father are clearly a result of parental alienation by the mother and indicates to 'malicious parental syndrome'. 5. It is further submitted that possibility of mother's interference by rewarding or punishing and denying father's parental right (as it happened in this case time and again since the child is born) and tutoring the child cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that since outcome of the instant petition, will take into consideration the wishes of the child, it becomes relevant and pertinent that the child is subjected to a psychological evaluation through an expert. It is further submitted that psychologically evaluation of the child helps to determine stress, depression level & also any bad tutoring or poisoning of mind to alienate the child from other parent. It is further submitted that without prejudice to and irrespective of the submissions made by the petitioner hereinabove, psychological evaluation of the child will serve as means to access various facets and provide insights into the mental health and emotional well being of the child, which will assist the Court in determination of the best interest of the child. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 filed reply vide document No. 8822/2024 and opposed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is argued that intent of the petitioner is not in the interest of the child but what all he wants is to win over in any situation at any cost. The petitioner has not dared to care for his family for long period of time. Making master Agastya to undergo such a procedure, at this tender age, would affect him adversely having several repercussions. It is further argued that petitioner is claiming similar relief in proceedings before Sehore Court. No such procedure is contemplated in Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India as no factual inquiry is permissible thereunder. No such test designed under medical science for determining the mental status of a child and it is merely a fantasy of the mind of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the instant I.A. filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. No such test designed under medical science for determining the mental status of a child and it is merely a fantasy of the mind of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the instant I.A. filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. The present habeas corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it is a trite law that in writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India, roving enquiry is not permissible. The documents available on record i.e. welfare report of the child Master Agastya Gupta by U.S. Consulate General Mumbai 2023 reveals that he is not only good in studies but also is good in other curricular activities. He has won various competition at District and State level and has been honoured by the District Collector at several instances which shows his good mental health. The present application seems to have been filed under some apprehension that the child who is under custody of his mother for a long period of time might refuse to live with the petitioner as he was said to be reluctant talking to the petitioner on some occassion. However, principle consideration for custody of the child is to ascertain his interest and well being and the consent of child itself is not the sole criteria for his custody. The Hon'ble Court in the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal reported in 2009 (1) SCC 42 herein, it has been laid down that :-- “43. The principles in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. In determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child” and not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the light of the Child Access and Custody guidelines 2014, psychoanalysis of child is necessary. However, the said guidelines are framed by some Child Rights Foundation and has been referred by High Court as an academic piece of work. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the light of the Child Access and Custody guidelines 2014, psychoanalysis of child is necessary. However, the said guidelines are framed by some Child Rights Foundation and has been referred by High Court as an academic piece of work. In chapter 6 of the said guidelines the attention is drawn towards the provision of section 12 of the Family Court Act 1984 according to which the Family Court is empowered to secure the services of medical experts for psychiatric and psychological evaluation of parents and child. However, the petitioner has approached this Court under the writ jurisdiction by filing writ of habeas corpus and it is a trite law that a writ petition is not a proper forum to decide the issue that requires substantial evidence as the nature of writ proceeding is to review legal decision based on the existing record, not to dwell into the complex factual dispute that demand extensive evidences. The appropriate course for the petitioner for such a relief of psychoanalysis of child is to aproach the Civil Court under the Guardian and Wards Act wherein the Court is empowered to do inquiry and consider all types of reports of experts giving the parties to chance or opportunity to cross examine the expert or to cross examine each other on such report. In this petition only question of illegal custody can be looked into. 10. In view of the above discussion I.A. No.8875/2024 is hereby dismissed. 11. Let the matter be listed for final arguments on 21.1.2025.