( 1 ) THAT a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable even in cases where the parents are fighting for the custody of their off-spring is no longer res Integra. In Gohar Begum v. Suggi @ Nazma Begum and ors. , AIR 1960 SC 93, the Apex Court traced the history of habeas corpus as prevalent in England and held that the principles applicable to such writs in England were also applicable to directions issued under Section 491 of the Cr. P. C: in this country. The court further observed that the power under Section 491 of the Cr. P. C. had been exercised in this country even in relation to the custody of the children, and approved the ratio of the decisions in Rama Iyer v. Nataraja Iyer, AIR 1948 Madras 294, zara Bibi v. Abdul Razzak, 12 Bombay Law Reporter 891 and Subbaswami Goundan v. Kamakshi Animal, AIR 1929 Madras 834 where the courts had exercised such power. More importantly the court held that the remedy available under Section 491 of the Cr. P. C. would become infructuous if it was not available in cases involving custody of infants.

( 2 ) THE above decision was approved by a Constitution Bench of the supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistr