ORDER : (Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.) This habeas corpus petition is filed under Article 26 of Constitution of India for the following main relief: - “……declaring the bizarre action of the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 in imperiously taking away and retaining the custody of the minor child Suhas is illegal highhanded tainted with malice actuated to deprive the petitioner, who being his mother of his lawful right to hold the custody and act as guardian of the minor child and void being in derogation of Section 13 of the Hindu minority and guardianship Act, 1956 and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to handover the custody of the minor Suhas to the petitioner and pass……” Brief case of the petitioner :- 2. Petitioner’s first husband namely Late M. Prasad initially married to Lakshmi Swapna Devi and they were blessed with one child namely, M.Suhas (minor), who was born on 08.07.2012, aged about 12 years (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as ‘child’). The said Lakshmi Swapna Devi passed away on 29.12.2014 due to ill health. Later on, the petitioner had married M.Prasad in the year 2017, which was registered on 27.09.2019, they lived together along with the child. Unfortunately, the said M. Prasad had passed away suddenly on 29.06.2024. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that, after the death of late M. Prasad (husband), the child was taken away by the unofficial respondents 5 to 9, who are parents of the late M. Prasad, brother and other close relatives of child’s father. Now, the petitioner apprehends danger to the child in the hands of the unofficial respondents 5 to 9. Hence, she instituted the instant writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of the child. Brief case of the unofficial respondents 5 to 9 :- 4. Per contra, the 7 th respondent who is the brother of the Late M.Prasad filed his detailed counter denying the assertions made by the writ petitioner. The counter further reveals that the petitioner was initially married to one Challa Surya Annapurneswara Rao and out of their marital tie, they were blessed with a boy namely, Challa Pranav Subhash. 5. In view of the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner filed maintenance case No.22 of 2013 on the file of A.J.F.C.M, Palakollu against her first husband (Challa Surya Annapurneswara Rao). 5. In view of the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner filed maintenance case No.22 of 2013 on the file of A.J.F.C.M, Palakollu against her first husband (Challa Surya Annapurneswara Rao). The said case was dismissed against the petitioner and allowed against her natural son. Against the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.79 of 2019 before the X Addl. District Judge, Narasapur. The Revisional Court has enhanced the amount so far as petitioner’s natural child Challa Pranav Subhash is concerned, and dismissed the claim against the petitioner herein. At last, the said case landed before this Court by way of Crl.P.No.272 of 2024 and the same is pending final adjudication. It is specifically stated in the counter that, the petitioner had never admitted her marriage with late M. Prasad, in her matrimonial cases filed against her first husband, so as to, claim maintenance only. It is further stated that, the petitioner is neither the natural mother nor the step-mother of the child. As such, in this case also, the petitioner cannot claim as if she is the mother of the child. It is also stated that, in order to extract money and property of the child for her ulterior purposes, the petitioner came up under the cover of motherhood. Rejoinder of the petitioner :- 6. In response, the petitioner filed her reply affidavit admitting her earlier marriage with Challa Surya Annapurneshwara Rao. The petitioner also claims that their marriage ended with divorce proceedings vide orders dated 20.03.2017 in H.M.O.P No.15 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. Moreover, the petitioner also filed a police complaint dated 29.07.2014 against the unofficial respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.Naga Surya Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General and Sri Y. Rama Tirtha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, at length. 8. In view of the rival assertions raised by the respective parties, this Court called for the presence of the minor child. Consequently, the child along with the 7 th respondent appeared before this Court on 01.10.2024. We have personally interacted with the child in the chambers, in order to know his views regarding his care and custody. In the said dialogue, we came to know that, the child is capable of understanding the rationale of our questions and observed that child is hale and healthy. We have personally interacted with the child in the chambers, in order to know his views regarding his care and custody. In the said dialogue, we came to know that, the child is capable of understanding the rationale of our questions and observed that child is hale and healthy. The child has expressed comfort living in the good care and custody of the unofficial respondents and said that unofficial respondents are taking good care in all aspects and, he is regularly attending school and doing well. Curiously, the child also described the negative attitude of the petitioner against him. 9. The above facts and circumstances, raise the following moot question:- Is the best interest and welfare of the minor child be served in the custody of the petitioner or unofficial respondents? Consideration of this Court:- 10. Before considering the rival submissions on both sides, it is apt to note the broad spectrum of settled legal principles regarding custody in a writ of habeas corpus of minor children, culled out by the Apex Court recently in Somprabha Rana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , [ (2024) 9 SCC 382 ] as under:- “9. After having perused various decisions of this Court, the broad propositions of settled law on the point can be summarised as follows: 9.1. Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ. It is an extraordinary remedy. It is a discretionary remedy; 9.2. The High Court always has the discretion not to exercise the writ jurisdiction depending upon the facts of the case. It all depends on the facts of individual cases; 9.3. Even if the High Court, in a petition of habeas corpus, finds that custody of the child by the respondents was illegal, in a given case, the High Court can decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the High Court is of the view that at the stage at which the habeas corpus was sought, it will not be in the welfare and interests of the minor to disturb his/her custody; and 9.4. As far as the decision regarding custody of the minor children is concerned, the only paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. The parties' rights cannot be allowed to override the child's welfare. This principle also applies to a petition seeking habeas corpus concerning a minor.” 11. As far as the decision regarding custody of the minor children is concerned, the only paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. The parties' rights cannot be allowed to override the child's welfare. This principle also applies to a petition seeking habeas corpus concerning a minor.” 11. Coming to the case on hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently asserted that, the writ of habeas corpus has been filed for the custody of the child, as the petitioner apprehends danger to the life and limb of the child from the hands of the unofficial respondents and further emphasizes on the best interest of the child coupled with the statutory provisions. He seeks to allow the writ petition by citing decisions, which highlight that the interest and welfare of the minor, are of paramount importance. 12. Conversely, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents vociferously argued that the petitioner is not at all the mother of the child. In fact, the petitioner conveniently suppressed the factum of her first marriage and about the existence of her natural son, who is in her care and custody. It is contended that, the petitioner suppressed the matrimonial disputes, which are still pending between the petitioner and her first husband. The learned counsel also referred, to the petitioner’s maintenance cases stating that, the petitioner has taken self-contradictory pleas regarding her marital ties with her second husband (M.Prasad). In substance, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents’ states that, the child’s natural parents have both passed away and the petitioner is taking undue advantage of her relationship with the child’s father. After the suspicious death of the child’s natural father, the petitioner instituted the lis, only to extract the money and property of the child. 13. It is relevant to note that, whenever a question about custody of minor child arises before a Court, the matter has to be decided on the sole and predominant criteria of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor but not on considerations of the legal rights of parties. 14. In this backdrop, it is relevant to refer to the Dictum of the Apex Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs. 14. In this backdrop, it is relevant to refer to the Dictum of the Apex Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu , [ (1984) 3 SCC 698 ] , has observed as under: “Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 constitutes the father as the natural guardian of a minor son. But that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. As the matters are presented to us today, the boy, from his own point of view, ought to be in the custody of the mother.” 15. It is evident from the record that, the child is aged about 12 years, born on 08.07.2012. Unfortunately, the child’s natural mother (Lakshmi Swapna Devi) is no more and the child's father seems to be in contact with the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is attempting to assume the role of a Mother. 16. It is apparent that, the petitioner already married one Challa Venkata Surya Annapurneswara Rao and they are blessed with a child namely, Challa Pranav Subhash, who is in her care and custody. Moreover, the petitioner is still facing matrimonial disputes with her first husband, which reveals the ground realities in the lis. Further, the petitioner, is duty bound to take care of her natural son too. 17. In fact, at the first instance, the petitioner conveniently suppressed information about her earlier marriage and the fact that she has a child with her first husband, as well as the fact that matrimonial issues with her first husband are still pending. Thus, the case of the petitioner comes under the realm of “suppressio veri suggestio falsi”. 18. Apart from that, the petitioner’s roles in different fields, greatly affect the petitioner physically, psychologically and fiscally. All these factors naturally have a great impact on the child’s education, health and overall growth. In a nutshell, the petitioner may not contribute much to the overall development of the child, which is the paramount consideration rather than the technical framework. In contrast, the unofficial respondents, who are natural grandparents and close blood relatives of the child’s natural father, are showering real love and care towards the child, who lost his both parents at a tender age. 19. Turning out to the clear wish of the child, when we interacted with the child in the chambers, we perceived his understanding etc. In contrast, the unofficial respondents, who are natural grandparents and close blood relatives of the child’s natural father, are showering real love and care towards the child, who lost his both parents at a tender age. 19. Turning out to the clear wish of the child, when we interacted with the child in the chambers, we perceived his understanding etc. Further, his strong expressions and feelings against the petitioner regarding her ill- treatment with him. Therefore, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the lis, we deem it appropriate to uphold the unequivocal expressions of the child that, he is comfortable in the hands of the unofficial respondents. We also observed that the child is hale and healthy, performing well in his studies, and is well-nurtured in all aspects, including his physical traits. It is quite apt and essential, in the child’s best interest, that he continues to remain in the care of the unofficial respondents. 20. On the other hand, the petitioner is mainly under the cover of provisions in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, pressing for the custody of the child as if the unofficial respondents forcibly took him without the child's consent. However, in reality, during our interaction the child himself said that he is living happily with the unofficial respondents out of his own free will and volition. 21. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, coupled with the legal position stated above and for the conclusions arrived at supra, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is needless to say the respective parties may avail their legal remedies, in accordance with Law, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.