Ankur Tripathi alias Tinnu Vs Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey and others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

1. By means of this habeas corpus writ petition the parents of minor child Ankur Tripathi alias Tinnu, who is aged about 9 years, have sought custody of the minor child from opposite parties.

2. At the outset it will be relevant to mention that opposite party No. 1, Radhey Shyam Pandey, is the maternal grandfather of the child and is aged about 57 years, opposite party No. 2, Srimati Rama Pandey is the maternal grandmother and is aged about 55 years and opposite party No. 3 Srimati Kamlesh who is maternal aunt of the minor is aged about 30 years. The parents of the minor reside at Lucknow while the opposite parties reside at Kanpur. According to the averments made in the petition the marriage between the parents of the minor took place on 16th May, 1977 and two sons were born, the elder one is Gaurav Tripathi who is aged about 11 years of age, the younger one is Saurabh Tripathi alias Tinku who has been renamed by the opposite parties as Ankur Tripathi, was born on 7th July, 1983 and who is petitioner in the present case. After about one year of the birth of the petitioner the mother of the petitioner, Srimati Akhilesh Tripathi, fell seriously ill and opposite parties 1 and 2 came to Luck-now and took away the petitioner from the guardianship of the parents of the minor for looking after the minor during the illness of the petitioner''s mother but when the petitioner''s mother recovered from illness she went and stayed with her parents at Kanpur for some month. She returned to Lucknow with the petitioner in the month of December, 1985 and the minor was admitted in St. Thomas School, Lucknow in pre-nursery class where his elder brother was also studying. After about two months the opposite parties 1 and 2 came to Lucknow and took away the minor petitioner for a couple of days. Thereafter whenever the parents of the petitioner asked for the custody of the minor petitioner the same was avoided by the opposite parties on some pretext or the other and the minor was got admitted in a school at Kanpur and thereafter they insisted that his study may be allowed to be completed at Kanpur. When on 3-5-1992 the parents of the minor petitioner went again to Kanpur to bring back the petitioner they were not allowed to do so and were turned out of the house. Thereafter the parents of the minor petitioner gave an application to the Inspector Incharge, Police Station, Kalyanpur, Kanpur City asking for release of the petitioner from the clutches of the opposite parties. Thereafter on 17th May, 1992 the parents of the minor petitioner again went to the house of the opposite parties to bring back the minor petitioner to Lucknow but they were abused stating that they had gifted the minor to opposite party No. 3 and now she is the mother of the minor. They were also turned out of the house by the opposite parties. The petitioner is being ill-treated and adequate food and clothing are not being given to him. The opposite party No. 1, Radhey Shyam Pandey, is working as Accountant in Jal Nigam Ganga Pradushan Shakha, Sharda Nagar and is drawing a little salary and opposite parties 1 and 2 are old and infirm and unable to take proper care of the minor petitioner. Opposite party No. 3, Smt. Kamlesh was married to Sri A.N. Pathak but she had left his company about 17 years back and is now living as a kept of Sri R.D. Tiwari. She is also working in Jal Nigam as steno and is drawing a meager salary. It is also alleged that her company with the petitioner will leave an unremoveable scar on the education, life and character of the petitioner and it will not be in the interest of the minor to remain in the custody of the opposite parties. It is also alleged that the father of the petitioner is a lecturer in Chemistry in Jai Narain Degree College, Lucknow since 1969 and at present is in a senior scale of Reader drawing a gross salary of Rs. 7000/- per month and has only his wife and elder son as his dependents. His wife, Smt. Akhilesh, is also a graduate in Arts and is a pious and homely lady and can look after the minor petitioner with great love and affection. The minor petitioner is being deprived of love and affection of his parents. The welfare of the child is in the hands of his parents. He can be mentally and physically developed in the company of his parents. The minor petitioner was removed from the custody of his parents from his residence at Lucknow.

3. Opposite parties have filed a common counter-affidavit alleging that on or about 24th February, 1984 the minor petitioner, Ankur Tripathi was hardly six months old when his parents had voluntarily entrusted the custody of the minor petitioner to the opposite parties once for all. The parents of the petitioner had fully authorised the opposite parties to treat the child as their own and be responsible for his maintenance, education and general welfare. The parents of the minor petitioner never bothered to take the child back at any stage prior to 12-4-1992. Now they have resorted to black mailing. The nuptial activities of Srimati Akhilesh Tripathi were not above board before her marriage and she had eloped with one boy, named Kishore. After marriage she had conceived the first son, Gaurav Tripathi and thereafter somehow or the other her husband Dr. Diwakar Tripathi came to know about her pre-nuptial immoral activities which resulted in regular domestic quarrels daily in the house and both the parties had lodged many first information reports at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. Thereafter when Ankur, the minor petitioner, was born, Dr. Diwakar Tripathi had doubted about the paternity of Ankur and there were regular quarrels between them on this point. The child was neglected after the birth and his parents did not take proper care of the child. When the child was delivered to opposite party No. 3 he was very weak and there were very rare chances of his survival. The minor child was thereafter medically treated and a lot of sum was spent over this child. The mother of the minor child had also fallen critically ill and in absence of proper medical treatment she was also suspected to die. In these circumstances the parents of the minor child had decided to abandon the child and put him into some orphanage. When these facts came to the knowledge of the opposite parties they offered to take the child in their custody and look after his welfare. The parents of the minor child agreed to part with the company of the minor child in favour of the opposite parties. This was done in presence of certain witnesses whose names are mentioned in the counter-affidavit. Opposite party No. 3 had no male child and therefore she was eager to adopt the minor Ankur Tripathi as her son, and now the opposite party No. 3 is assuming the role of the mother of the child (minor petitioner). The mother of the minor child used to visit her parents at Kanpur whenever , she fell ill as there was nobody at Lucknow to undertake her proper treatment. The minor petitioner did not return to Lucknow in. December, 1985 as alleged. In fact Ankur, the minor petitioner, with opposite party No. 2 and Km. Rashi, daughter of opposite party No. 3, went to Lucknow on 1st August, 1986 for participating in the birth day celebrations of the elder brother, Gaurav Tripathi. It was the normal practice to go to Lucknow and come back to Kanpur either on the same day or after one or two days'' stay. Ankur Tripathi was, no doubt, admitted in St. Thomas School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow in August, 1986 immediately after the said birth day but he did not stay there and was sent back to Kanpur after hardly one day''s attendance in the school. His name was, therefore, struck off the rolls after a day or two. After 24th February, 1984 the parents of the minor never took any steps to take back the minor and now on 12th April, 1992 after a gap of about 8 1/2 years they came to the residence of the opposite parties with the object of black mailing and exploiting the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 3 is the sole owner of a house No. 1063 M. Block, Kakadeo, Kanpur. The market value of the said property is valued at several lacs of rupees. The opposite parties along with the minor petitioner, Ankur Tripathi, reside in the same house. It is alleged that Diwakar Tripathi, the father of the minor petitioner, is a habitual gambler and has already lost enormous wealth over Satta business and is now financially bankrupt. Half of the property of opposite party No. 3 will go to Ankur Tripathi, the minor petitioner and the remaining half will go to her daughter Kumari Rashi. The Police Inspector of Kalyanpur Police Station, Kanpur had called the opposite parties 1 and 3 along with Ankur Tripathi, and handed over the minor child Ankur Tripathi to his father, Dr. Diwakar Tripathi but the minor child wept and cried in panic and told the Police Officer that he did not recognise his parents and refused to go with them. The parents of the minor have also filed a petition under S. 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with S. 9(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, on 8-4-1992 and the question of their coming to the residence of the opposite parties on 17-5-1992 does not arise and they never came to the house of the opposite parties. The opposite parties never abused or threatened the parents of the minor petitioner as alleged. It is not a fact that the minor child is being ill treated and is not being given adequate food and clothing. He is also not being beaten.

4. The opposite party No. 1 is holding the post of Accounts Officer in Jal Nigam and is drawing a salary of Rs. 4600/- per month and is residing in a rent free house with his daughter opposite party No. 3 and has no liability as all his three daughters are married. Both the opposite parties 1 and 2 are hale and hearty and they are physically fit to look after the welfare of the minor child. The opposite party No. 3, Smt. Kamlesh, is a law graduate and is a steno in Jal Nigam drawing a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month. The charge of immorality against the opposite party No. 3 is not only false but scandalous. She was married to Sri A. N. Pathak in May, 1972. She was then aged about 20 years whereas her said husband was aged about 41 years. She resided with her husband from May, 1972 to September, 1973 and performed her part of the marital obligations. When she learnt in September, 1973 that her husband was a drunkared and a Characterless person and already kept another Christian lady as his first wife and had two children out of her, she shunned the society of such a husband and left his house in September, 1973. By that time she had conceived a child and Kumari Rashi was born on 8-5-1974. She has not given the child the surname of her husband. She never resided with Sri R. D. Tewari nor have had any immoral relations with him. She respects him as her brother who is living with his wife. As they do not have any issue they had taken fancy for Rashi and as such the surname of Rashi came to be as Tewari. There is no explanation as to why from 1984 till 1992 the parents of the minor petitioner remained silent and did nothing to obtain the custody of their minor child. On 12-4-1992 the parents of the minor child gave threat to opposite parties to kidnap the child and also to kidnap Kumari Rashi out of vengeance. A written report of this was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur.

5. As a case u/s 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with Section 9(g) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by opposite party No. 3 in relation to the guardianship of Ankur Tripathi, the minor petitioner. Simultaneously an application for grant of temporary injunction against Dr. Diwakar Tripathi was also moved. The question of jurisdiction was also raised that this Court had no jurisdiction to decide this matter as the child was voluntarily left by the parents in February, 1984 at Kanpur, It is also alleged that there is alternative remedy available to the parents of the petitioner. As the parents have suppressed the material facts the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that it is not a case of illegal detention and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit it is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the parents of the petitioner continuously demanded the custody of the petitioner from the opposite parties since 1984 but the same was evaded by the opposite parties and now they have started black mailing tactics, by demanding one lack fifty thousand rupees for the release of the minor petitioner. This amount is being demanded on the pretext that the same has been spent on upbringing of the minor and the allegations of immorality made against the parents of the petitioner by the opposite parties are denied. The petitioner was never thought of being given in the orphanage and this is a fabricated story. The child was never ''given in adoption or otherwise the custody of the minor child was never given once for all to opposite party No. 3 as alleged by them. The parents of the minor petitioner never black mailed the opposite parties. The minor showed his willingness but the police inspector at Kanpur took no action on the complaint of the parents of the minor as he was won over by the opposite parties. The parents of the minor did not know about the filing of the case on 8-5-1992 under the Guardians and Wards Act. The opposite party No. 1 is not an Accounts Officer but is merely a head clerk. The opposite party No. 2 is not physically fit to look after the minor child. The parents of the minor are giving money to opposite parties 1 and 2 for maintenance of the child as the opposite parties 1 and 2 come to Lucknow to take the money. The parents of the minor petitioner are natural guardian of the petitioner and they should be handed over the custody of the minor.

7. In the supplementary counter-affidavit Smt. Kamlesh Pandey, opposite party No. 3, has alleged that information was sent to the father of the minor petitioner that application under the Guardians and Wards Act was moved. The writ petition was filed much later than the service of the summons on the petitioner''s father. It is alleged that no demand of rupees one lac fifty thousand was made by the opposite party No. 3 or any other person on her behalf. The child was actually gifted to opposite party No. 3. The stand taken by Smt. Akhilesh Tripathi, in her rejoinder affidavit, that since 1984 the parents of the minor were making efforts to get back the child, Master Ankur from the opposite parties but the opposite parties were avoiding the delivery of the child, is contrary to the stand taken in paras 4 and 5 of the writ petition. The child is still studying at Kanpur.

8. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit it is alleged that the father of the petitioner did not receive the summons as alleged on 15-5-1992 and it appears that his signatures were forged. The alternative remedy is not a bar to file habeas corpus writ petition. It is reiterated that the welfare of the child is with his parents.

9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

10. The question of jurisdiction was taken as a preliminary question and it was decided in favour of the petitioner. It was held that this Court at Lucknow has jurisdiction to entertain this habeas corpus writ petition.

11. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised another preliminary objection that as alternative remedy is available to the parents of the petitioner in the civil Court under the Hindu Minority and Guardian and Wards Act, this writ petition is not maintainable. He has further argued that there are disputed question of fact which require decision. In writ petition these disputed questions cannot be decided, hence the matter is not maintainable in this Court. Learned counsel for opposite parties has referred to certain case law on the subject.

12. The first case on this point is Mt. Haidari Begum Vs. Jawad Ali . In that case there had been a divorce between the husband and wife and the parties were mohammedans. The child was four years old. The mother applied to the High Court u/s 491 (old) Cr.P.C. After dealing with the facts of the case it was held that the applicant should seek remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act and the High Court should not exercise its discretion u/s 491 (old) Cr.P.C. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there the dispute about the custody of the child was between the mother and the father of the child but in the present case the dispute is between the parents of the child and his aunt.

13. The next case is Sultan Singh Vs. B. Maya Ram Radha Swami, . In that case the dispute was between the " father of the minor child and grand-father. The petitioner was father of the minor child. The minor was under the charge of his grandfather. A direction was sought u/s 491 (old) Cr.P.C. for custody of the child. After perusing the facts the learned Judge came to the conclusion that power has to be exercised by this Court with caution and not in case where there is dispute as to who should be guardian of minor. It was further held that as the petitioner had permitted the minor son to remain in the custody of his grand-father for about four years the application could not be allowed. This case does not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the Supreme Court decision a reference to which will be made in the latter part of the judgment.

14. The next case is Gopal Ji and Others Vs. Shree Chand and Another, . In that case a petition u/s 491 (old) Cr.P.C. and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was filed after a lapse of seven months. The mother of the minor had died and the father filed the petition for custody of minor children. The minor children had been taken away by the opposite parties. One of the opposite parties in that case was Mausa (maternal uncle) of the minors. On these facts the court held that a long time was allowed to lapse between the time of removal of the children and the filing of the petition. Therefore the petition was not liable to be allowed. It was also held that the petition was made not because the detention of the children was illegal, at any rate, in the point of view of the petitioner, from its inception, or that there was any danger, to begin with, to the lives of the children if they remained in the custody of the opposite parties. It was also held that a writ is never utilised or used for purposes of merely determining the rival claims of competing guardians: that claim has to be determined under the appropriate law, namely under the Guardians and Wards Act. This case also cannot be relied upon in view of a decision of the Supreme Court which will be referred in the latter part of the judgment.

15. In the case of Bhagwati Bai Vs. Yadav Krishna Awadhiya and Others, a similar question was raised as to whether a writ petition will lie or the remedy lies under the Guardians and Wards Act. After considering the question it was held that for restoration of custody of a minor from a person who according to the personal law, is not his legal or natural guardian, the ordinary remedy lies under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act, as the case may be, and it is only in exceptional cases that the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined on a petition for habeas corpus. It cannot be said that an application u/s 491 (old) Cr.P.C. by a guardian for custody of the minor, cannot lie just because there is the ordinary remedy provided by the law. Where there is imminent danger to the health or safety or morals of the minor, an interim order for production of the minor becomes necessary. In that case the custody of the minor child was given to mother. This case does not support the contention of the opposite parties but on the other hand supports the contention of the parents of the petitioner that the writ petition will lie in spite of the alternative remedy under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act.

16. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is Aftab Parvez alias Saif Habeeb v. Shahabuddin, 1983 LLJ 201) wherein it was held that where there is a serious dispute on the question of fact in between the parties the jurisdiction should not be exercised under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The factual controversy should be gone into in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. In that case the matter was between the mother and grand-father of the minor.

17. The next case is Moti Lal (minor) v. Incharge Rajkiya Poshnar, (1983 LLJ 207). In that case the writ petition was filed for custody of the minor child by the grandmother. On the facts of the case it was held that there was a disputed question of fact and this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction will not decide the question of fact and therefore it was directed the appropriate court should be approached.

18. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi Vs. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi, . In this case the father of the child was facing a criminal trial u/s 198A of the Indian Penal Code and the mother of the child had died. The statement of the child was recorded. The minor was residing with his maternal uncle. The application for appointment of guardian was moved by the brother of the mother of the minor for guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act. A declaration was sought that the father of the minor was unfit to be the guardian as he was charged with a criminal offence. In the meantime an application was also filed before the District Judge by the father of the minor and the child was ordered to be produced in the court and instead an appeal against the ex parte order of the District Judge, Rajkot was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. The High Court passed an order according to which the District Judge, Rajkot was required to pass fresh order after hearing both the parties. An application u/s 10 of the CPC was filed before the District Judge, Rajkot for stay of the proceedings in that court on the ground that similar proceedings were pending in that Court from an earlier date, before the District Judge at Jamnagar. The District Judge, Rajkot stayed further proceedings by its order dated April 22, 1991 and reported the matter to the High Court u/s 14 of the Act. A civil revision was filed against the order of the District Judge, Rajkot. The High Court transferred the case pending before the District Judge, Rajkot, The Hon''ble Judges of the Bench of the Apex Court talked the child who was bitter about his father and narrated various episodes showing ill-treatment of his mother at the hand of his father and stated that he was not willing to live with his father and was happy to live with his maternal uncle. On these facts the Apex Court refused to hand over the custody of the child to his father even though considering the fact that the father being the natural guardian has a preferential right to the custody of his minor child but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the wishes of the child who was intelligent enough to understand his well being. The Apex Court, in view of the facts of that case, permitted the father to meet the child to win over the love and affection of the child and thereafter to move the application regarding custody of the child. Therefore this case has been decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances and is not applicable to the present case.

19. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Kumari Kaniz Fatema alias Suduhi Vs. Syed Sarvar Husain Rizvi and Others, . In that case the facts were entirely different. The petition was filed by the mother. She did not know that her husband was already married. It was alleged that after the birth of the petitioner (the minor child) her husband started neglecting her and used to call girls in absence of his parents, and forced her to cook food for the girls who used to visit that place. She was even asked to wash the clothes etc. of those girls. Her husband also used to demand money from time to time from her and she was forced to take poison and proper treatment was not given to her. Thereafter her husband divorced her. On these facts this Court held that there was a disputed question of fact, hence it will not be proper to grant any relief in a writ of habeas corpus and the matter should be left to be decided by the regular courts. Therefore this case does not apply to the facts of the present case as the position here is entirely different.

20. The next case is D. Vaidyalingam Vs. Kuppuswamy Reddi and others, . In this case the minors were aged about 7 years and 5, years. The petitioner in that case was the maternal grand-father on the minors and respondents 1 and 2 were the paternal grandfather and grand-mother of the minors, The petitioner''s daughter, Pushpalatha, was married to one Dhandapani. She died. Subsequently in the writ petition filed by the petitioner the High Court directed that the minors, Haribaskar, be admitted in Bala Mandir, Madras till the question of custody is decided by the Court. A suit was also filed by the petitioner against the father of the minor children claiming custody of the minor children. This suit was filed in district court. The father of the minor children also died in a road accident and thereafter the District Judge appointed the petitioner as guardian of the minors. In that case the heirs of the father of the minor children were not impleaded as parties. In the proceedings before the civil court the respondents 1 and 2 were appointed guardian of the minors. The respondents. 1 and 2 had alleged before the civil court that the minors were living with them since their birth. The matter was also raised in the writ petition which was filed in the High Court that as the subject matter of the writ petition is also pending before the civil court and the civil court has already passed an order in favour of respondents 1 and 2 appointing them as guardians of the minors, the remedy does not lie in the writ petition. The High Court after perusing the facts of the case held that it was not for the High Court to sit over the judgment passed by the civil court to grant any relief. It was further held that the petitioner has not made out any case to hand over the custody of the minor children to the petitioner contrary to the orders passed by the civil court and he was to work out his remedy in the civil court by getting the ex parte order set aside. The matter was, therefore, left to be considered by the civil court. The facts of this case are also different because there the parents were not involved in the controversy which had arisen.

21 On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two cases on the question of alternative remedy. In support of his plea that alternative remedy is not efficacious relief and the petitioner cannot be directed to go and approach the civil court under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act these two cases have been cited. Reliance has also been placed on these cases in support of the contention that if there are no disputed questions which do not affect the merit of the case then the writ petition can be decided by this Court. The first case is Kumari Sunita and Another Vs. Smt. Shyam Kali, . In that case habeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of the minors by their father against the step mother of the deceased mother of the minors. In that case the age of the minor girl was 12 years and the age of the boy was 10 years. There were slight differences between the ages of the minors given on behalf of the petitioners and that given by the respondent but that was not very material. In that case it was opined that it is undisputed that the father of the minor is the natural guardian and ordinarily he has to keep the minors with him. Therefore the father cannot move an application for appointment of guardian under Guardians and Wards Act. Reliance was also placed on Section 6 of the said Act which provides that the father is the natural guardian of Hindu minors and after the death of the father the mother is the natural guardian. Section 13 of the said Act was also relied upon which provides that appointment of a guardian can be made for welfare of the minor. In this case also it was opined that the detention of a child against the wishes of the natural guardian amounted to illegal detention and it was not necessary that the father should have sought remedy under the Guardian and Wards Act. The Court also came to the conclusion that inspite of the fact that a remedy is provided under the Guardians and Wards Act the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of, India is maintainable on the ground that the right of natural guardian is indefeasible. Reliance was also placed on a Privy Council Case Mrs, Annie Besant v. G. Narayaniah (AIR 1914 PC 41) in which it was held that the father is the natural guardian of his children during their minorities, but this guardianship is in the nature of a sacred trust, and he cannot therefore during his lifetime substituted another person to be guardian in his place. He may, it is true, in the exercise of his discretion as guardian entrust the custody and education of his children to another, but the authority he thus confers is essentially a revocable authority, and if the welfare of his children requires it he can notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, take such custody and education once more into his own hands. In this case it was also held that if disputed questions are not necessary to be decided for deciding the custody of the child then writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India can lie. In that case also the facts were quite similar to the present case. Opposite party was not sending back the minors at the request of their father and as such the detention of the minors was held to be illegal.

22. The other case is Gohar Begam Vs. Suggi alias Nazma Begam and Others, . In this case the child was 7 years of age. The child was born on Sept. 4, 1952 at Jabalpur. The parentage of the child was not known. The mother of the child was a dancing girl and after the birth of the child she was kept by one Trivedi who gave his name to the child. The opposite party with whom the child was staying was also a dancing lady. In this case the respondent had taken a plea that the minor''s mother had given the minor to her to bring up when very young as she had not the means to do so herself and since then the minor had been living with her all along. It was also contended by the respondent, that the child was being looked after with great care and solicitude and had been put in a good school and an Aya had been kept for her. It was also alleged that the respondent had no child of her own and was fond of the minor whom she was treating as her own child. On these undisputed facts the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under (at page 95):--

"The respondent has no legal right whatsoever to the custody of the child. Her refusal to make over the child to the appellant therefore resulted in an illegal detention of the child within the meaning of Section 491."

In the above case reliance was also placed on an English case in R. v. Clarke (1857) 7 E1 & B1 186: 119 ER 1217, which was also to the same effect. It was also observed that the mother of the minor can be expected to take better care of the child than the respondent and the other lady has no such right against the natural guardian. It was also observed that the Court had not been able to find a single reason how the interest of the child would be better served if she was left in the custody of the respondent and not with the appellant. Trivedi had acknowledged the paternity of the child, so in law the child could claim to be maintained by him. It was also stressed that the welfare of the child was of primary concern. This has been the threshold in all the cases which have been relied upon by both the parties. Therefore in such cases the welfare of the minor has to be taken into consideration and the case has to be decided keeping this fact in mind. With respect to the alternative remedy the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above case observed as under:--

"We further see no reason why the appellant should have been asked to proceed under the Guardian and Wards Act for recovering the custody of the child. She had of course the right to do so. But she had also a clear right to an order for the custody of the child u/s 491 of the Code. The fact that she had a right under the Guardians and Wards Act is no justification for denying her the right under S. 491".

23. Both the cases which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner give a complete answer to the questions raised by the opposite parties. The petitioners cannot be driven to seek their remedy under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act because the detention of the minor by the opposite parties who are not the parents of the minor cannot be said to be legal. The custody of the minor with the opposite parties is illegal. Once the custody becomes illegal the proper remedy is habeas corpus petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act a natural guardian can be removed on certain conditions which are enumerated in Section 13 of the Act. In the present case unless the natural guardian who are the parents are not removed as guardian no other person can be appointed as guardian. When the parents are natural guardians of the minor child it cannot be said that they should approach under any other law for being appointed as guardian. They have merely claimed the custody of the minor child which cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that they should approach the civil court under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act because that remedy is not available to a person who is already a guardian under the provisions of law. That remedy could only have been availed if there had been disputed questions of fact which could not be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. If the questions of fact are not to be looked into in order to decide the interest of the child then these facts become quite irrelevant. This Court can ignore those facts.

24. In the present case the admitted fact is that the parents have claimed the custody of the minor child and they are the natural guardians. The father of the minor is the natural guardian of the minor and he has a right to keep the child with him. The opposite party No. 3 is the Mausi of the child and is not a natural guardian of the child and she has no right to keep the child in her custody. The question as to whether the mother of the minor child was leading immoral life before the marriage or after the marriage or whether the opposite party No. 3 is still leading immoral life are the questions of fact and the custody of the child cannot be made dependent on these facts. Both the parties have indulged in character assassination of each other which can be easily ignored in these proceedings. It may also be mentioned that the parents of the minor also have a son, named Gaurav, who is about, two years older than the minor. The opposite party No. 3 has a daughter from her first husband whom she has left and is not living with her husband. She is residing with her daughter. She has merely said that the interest of the minor will be safe in her hands as she is capable of giving the minor good education and she has also brought up the child from the childgood. In the petition it has been alleged that the father of the minor is drawing about Rs. 7000/-being a lecturer in senior scale. The parents who have only two children and getting about 7000/- rupees per month can easily nurse, educate and look after the children very well. The parents have natural affection for their children. In the instant case the parents had to part with the company of the minor child, Ankur on account of the illness of the mother of the minor child. This fact is also admitted to the opposite parties that on account of the illness of the mother of the minor child the child was left by his parents in the custody of his maternal grand-father and grand-mother. Now when the parents are demanding the custody of the child the opposite parties cannot refuse the same on the ground that they are keeping the child from the childhood.

25. The Court also talked to the child in Chamber for about 25 minutes. The child is quite intelligent and was found to be quite friendly. During the discussion he did not disclose any hatred or any ill will against his parents. He merely said that he has been brought up by opposite party No. 3 therefore he will live with her and will not like to go with her parents. He also said that he had been going to attend the birth day function of his elder brother, Gaurav, at the place of his parents, but during the pendency of this writ petition he has not gone to his parents'' place. His brother, Gaurav, had also been coming to his place. He recognises his parents but addresses them as Mausa and Mausi. There- fore in the present case it cannot be said that the child has any hatred towards his parents or does not recognises them at all. The facts of this case are dissimilar to the case of Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi Vs. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi, wherein the child categorically stated that he was not willing to live with his parents and was bitter about his father and narrated various episodes of ill-treatment of his mother at the hands of his father and was happy to live with his maternal uncle. Even in this case it was observed that the father being the natural guardian has a preferencial right to the custody of this child and it was directed that the father should develop love and affection of the child and thereafter move the court for custody of the child. The facts of this case are different from that of the present case. In the above case the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the welfare of the child is in the hands of his parents who cultivate him good manners, give him a good education and provide a comfortable living according to their status. The profession of Lecturer is a noble profession and the child in the company of his parents will grow to become a good human being. This aspect of the case has to be kept in the mind by the court that the parents who are the natural guardian of the minor should be given custody of the minor child unless there are compelling reasons or circumstances to deprive the parents of the custody of the child.

26. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The opposite parties, particularly opposite party No. 3, are directed to hand over the custody of the child, Ankur Tripathi alias Tinnu to his, father Dr. Diwakar Tripathi, by whom this petition has been filed on behalf of the minor, within, fifteen days from today. There will be no order as to costs.

27. Petition allowed.