ORDER : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. This writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4-Police officials to produce the corpus, who is a minor girl by name Hanvita Arun, aged about four years, who is the daughter of the petitioner, said to have been in illegal custody of respondent No.5, before the Court and to give her custody to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Shaik Sulthan, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. The petitioner is the wife of a person by name Arun Teja Posa. They begot a female child by name Hanvita Arun (hereinafter referred to as ‘corpus’) during their lawful wedlock. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner passed away on 06.06.2023 due to ill-health. According to the petitioner, her daughter was in her custody, after the death of her husband and she has been taking care of her. While so, it is pleaded that the 5 th respondent, who is the paternal aunt of her husband has taken the daughter of the petitioner with her in the first week of April 2025 on the pretext of taking her for a short visit and thereafter, she did not return the child to the petitioner. It is stated that inspite of her repeated requests to return the child to her that the 5 th respondent did not return the corpus to the petitioner. So, it is alleged that the petitioner has lodged a report with the Police. But, no action has been taken by the Police to give back the custody of the corpus to the petitioner. Therefore, she has filed the instant writ petition, seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. The 5 th respondent filed her counter affidavit. In her counter, it is categorically admitted that the petitioner is the wife of Posa Arun Teja, who is the nephew of the 5 th respondent and that the corpus was born to them during their lawful wedlock. Therefore, she has filed the instant writ petition, seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. The 5 th respondent filed her counter affidavit. In her counter, it is categorically admitted that the petitioner is the wife of Posa Arun Teja, who is the nephew of the 5 th respondent and that the corpus was born to them during their lawful wedlock. However, it is pleaded that after the demise of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner herself has left the corpus at the residence of the 5 th respondent and since then, the corpus is in the custody of the 5 th respondent and she and her family members have been taking care of the corpus and also providing education to her and looking after her welfare. It is further pleaded that the petitioner did not take up the responsibility of the child after the demise of her husband and she did not show any concern towards the child and it is pleaded that at no point of time the 5 th respondent and her family members prevented the petitioner from visiting the child and to spend time with her. It is pleaded that the writ petition has been filed with all false allegations. Further, the 5 th respondent has specifically pleaded that the petitioner is involved in many criminal cases including the cases relating to Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and in view of the said conduct of the petitioner that it is not safe to keep the minor child in the custody of the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In the said reply affidavit, while admitting that criminal cases are registered against her, she has pleaded that the said criminal cases ended in acquittal. She has further admitted in the reply affidavit at para No.7 that after the unfortunate demise of her husband that she was in emotional and mental stress and at that time she has temporarily left the corpus with the family of her husband, believing that they would act in good faith and allow her to take back her daughter subsequently. But, the 5 th respondent and her family members retained the child and they refused to even allow her to visit the child. 6. But, the 5 th respondent and her family members retained the child and they refused to even allow her to visit the child. 6. When the matter came up for hearing before the Court on 03.12.2025, learned counsel for the 5 th respondent has submitted before the Court that as on that day the child was in the custody of the 5 th respondent and as ten crimes were registered against the petitioner, including the crimes under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 that the custody of the child was earlier handed over to Child Welfare Committee and they in turn have given the custody of the child to the great paternal grandmother of the child and that she is now in the custody of the great paternal grandmother of the corpus. 7. In view of the said submissions made before the Court, as the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration to decide the custody of the minor child and in order to ascertain the true facts, we have directed the 4 th respondent-Station House Officer of Kadapa Rural Police Station to produce the corpus by name Hanvita Arun, who is a minor child, who is said to be in the custody of the great paternal grandmother of the corpus, before the Court on 10.12.2025. Pursuant to the said direction, the corpus was produced before the Court on 10.12.2025 by her great paternal grandmother. But, the matter could not be taken up for hearing on that day. The matter is again posted to 17.12.2025. But, on 17.12.2025, as the corpus was not produced, the matter is again posted to 18.12.2025. On 18.12.2025, we have interacted with the corpus, who is a minor child, along with the petitioner, who is the mother of the corpus, in our chamber. The corpus has refused to accompany the petitioner, who is her mother. Even though we have persuaded the child to accompany her mother, she refused to accompany her mother. She has clearly expressed her intention to live with her great grandmother with whom she is staying as per the order of the Child Welfare Committee. 8. The corpus has refused to accompany the petitioner, who is her mother. Even though we have persuaded the child to accompany her mother, she refused to accompany her mother. She has clearly expressed her intention to live with her great grandmother with whom she is staying as per the order of the Child Welfare Committee. 8. As the 5 th respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner, who is the mother of the corpus, is a woman of questionable character and that four crimes under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are registered against her along with other cases and that it is not safe to keep the corpus in her custody even though she is the mother of the corpus, as she has produced the copies of the FIRs relating to the said crimes and as the petitioner in her reply affidavit has stated that the said cases are closed, we have directed the 3 rd respondent-Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, to verify whether the said cases registered against the petitioner under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and other cases are closed or not and if they are closed, to ascertain on what grounds that they are closed and to submit a report before the Court. We have permitted the corpus to accompany her great grandmother with whom she is willing to stay. 9. As directed by the Court, the 3 rd respondent-Superintendent of Police has submitted the report. A perusal of the said report clearly shows that about 13 crimes were registered against the petitioner. The details of the said crimes are furnished in a tabular form in the report. Certain crimes are registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and particularly three crimes were registered against her under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It is further stated that in two crimes relating to Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, she was acquitted and in other crime that she was convicted and she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. A copy of the judgment relating to her conviction in the said case is also enclosed to the said report. Thus, it is evident from the said judgment and the report of the Superintendent of Police that she was found guilty in a crime registered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. A copy of the judgment relating to her conviction in the said case is also enclosed to the said report. Thus, it is evident from the said judgment and the report of the Superintendent of Police that she was found guilty in a crime registered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. However, she has deliberately suppressed the said fact in her reply affidavit that she was convicted in the said crime. She has also stated before this Court during our interaction with her that all the cases registered against her are closed. Thus, she has not only suppressed the material fact, but, she has deliberately misled the Court also. The said conduct of the petitioner speak volumes regarding her character. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent that when the petitioner is a woman of a questionable character and when she has indulged herself in commission of offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, considering the fact that the welfare of the child is always a matter of paramount consideration to decide the custody of the child, as per the settled law, we are of the considered view that in the said facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said conduct of the petitioner, it is not at all safe to keep the child in the custody of the petitioner. Particularly, as the corpus is a female child, it is not at all safe to allow her to be in the custody of the petitioner and she cannot be allowed to be brought up in such an atmosphere. 10. Be that as it may, a petition for Habeas Corpus in cases relating to child custody would be maintainable only when it is proved and established before the Court that the child was forcibly taken away from the custody of the petitioner, who is the mother and the child has been illegally confined or detained by the 5 th respondent. As noticed supra, while dealing with the pleadings of the petitioner, she herself has clearly pleaded in her reply affidavit at para No.7 that while she was in severe stress after the demise of her husband that she alone has kept the corpus, who is her daughter, in the custody of the 5 th respondent. As noticed supra, while dealing with the pleadings of the petitioner, she herself has clearly pleaded in her reply affidavit at para No.7 that while she was in severe stress after the demise of her husband that she alone has kept the corpus, who is her daughter, in the custody of the 5 th respondent. So, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that the 5 th respondent or her family members have forcibly taken away the child from the custody of the petitioner and kept her in their custody illegally and thereby confined her or detained her unlawfully. Therefore, on that ground a petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. In such circumstances, if at all she intends to claim for custody of the child, she has to pursue her remedy before the appropriate forum. 11. Further, after the petitioner has lodged report with the Police, as per the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, a girl missing case was registered and the Police have traced the girl and as they found that the petitioner, who is the mother of the child, is involved in commission of offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 that the Police also felt that it is not safe to keep the child in the custody of the petitioner and they have delivered the custody of the child to Child Welfare Committee, Ananthapuramu, for safe custody of the child. The Child Welfare Committee also, after ascertaining the said facts, have given the child to the custody of the great grandmother of the corpus to take care of her and to look after her welfare. Since then, the child is in the safe custody of the great grandmother of the corpus. We have already stated supra in our discussion that in our interaction with the child also, she refused to accompany her mother and she only agreed to accompany her great grandmother and stay with her. 12. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, no direction to deliver the custody of the child to the petitioner can be given in the present writ petition. The writ petition is absolutely devoid of merit and the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. 13. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The writ petition is absolutely devoid of merit and the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. 13. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.