Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent No. 2 to produce the son of the petitioner, Rohit, aged about four years and to hand over the custody of the said child to the petitioner. A writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondent No. 1 to register an FIR against the respondent No. 2 is also prayed for.

2. On issuance of notice to the respondents, the respondent No. 2 "husband appeared in person and by an order dated August 21, 2007 was directed to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner" mother in the Court. The petitioner was, however, directed to bring the child on the following day to the Court, that is, on 22nd August, 2007. On the said date, an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court, which reads as under:

Husband of the petitioner is present in the Court and he undertakes to take his wife and son to his place of work from Delhi. They shall live together as husband and wife and report to this Court on the next date. The father of the petitioner Sh. Roop Singh Sajwan and father of respondent no.2 shall give their undertakings of the good conduct and behavior of the petitioner and respondent no.2. They shall also state in the said undertakings that they will not in any manner ill treat the wife Smt. Sheela and Master Rohit. The father of Smt. Sheela shall also give an undertaking ensuring good behavior and conduct of his daughter, which shall be kept on record. List on 28th November, 2007, when Smt. Sheela, her husband along with her child shall be present in the Court.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, undertakings were furnished by the parties, i.e., the petitioner, the respondent No. 2, the father of the petitioner, Shri Roop Singh Sajwan, and the father of the respondent No. 2, Shri Anand Singh Rawat, in terms of the aforesaid order. The custody of the child was consequently allowed to remain with the petitioner-mother for the time being. In order to ensure compliance with the order, the case was adjourned to 28th November, 2007 when the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 and the child were directed to be present in Court.

4. On 28.11.2007, this Court was informed by Ms. Mukta Gupta, the Standing Counsel for the State that the petitioner, who had undertaken to go to the place of work of the respondent-husband from Delhi, did not comply, though the respondent-husband showed his willingness and even rented an independent accommodation for the purpose of residing together with the petitioner and his child. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the State, she was directed to file a comprehensive report and it was ordered that till then, the child shall remain with the respondent No. 2-husband. The custody of the child was accordingly restored to the husband. The following order was passed by this Court and the matter was adjourned to 7th December, 2007 to enable the parties to comply with the order:

On 21st August, 2007, the custody of the child was handed over to the petitioner-mother on the ground that she undertook to go to the place of work of the respondent-husband from Delhi. The counsel appearing for the State informs us that the petitioner did not do so though the respondent showed his willingness and had in fact, rented an independent accommodation. Counsel for the State is directed to file a comprehensive status report bringing the up-to-date development of the case on record before the next date of hearing. Till then, the child shall remain with the husband who will ensure the presence of the child on the next date of hearing and the child shall be handed over to the husband by the petitioner in the chamber of Ms. Mukta Gupta, counsel for the State. List on 7th December, 2007.

5. A detailed status report came to be filed by the State Counsel, which happens to be the last in a series of three status reports filed by the respondent No. 1State. A conjoi