( 1 ) UNMARRIED Chetnaben @ Artiben, by this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India has moved this Court, inter alia praying for issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus in particular against the respondent No. 3 mistry Ganpatbhai Bakshiram who happens to be her father directing him to produce before this Court her minor son Ravi (seven months old) born out of extra-marital relationship with one Vithal and hand over his possession to her.

( 2 ) ON going through the petition, in substance the petitioner has narrated her history with regard to her coming into contact with one Vithalbhai Panchal; who though married was deserted by his wife, and about her subsequent companionship with him and out of the said relationship giving birth to illegitimate son Ravi on 29-1-1995 at Ahmedabad. In the petition, she has also further narrated about the harassment meted out to her and her companion Vithal by the respondent No. 3 and how ultimately after the birth of Ravi he forcibly took him away from her. Further still, according to the petitioner though she had repeatedly entreated her father to give back her son Ravi, but that was all in vain. It is under these compelling circumstances that the petitioner has been constrained to move this Court praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, as stated above in para 1 of this judgment.

( 3 ) EARLIER, when this matter came up for admission before this Court on 23-8-1995, notice was issued making it returnable on 31-8-1995 directing the respondent No. 3 to produce Ravi before the Court on the said returnable date at 11-00 a. m. Accordingly, in response to our said notice, respondent No. 3 appearing before us has filed reply-affidavit denying all the allegations levelled against him in the petition, counter-alleging that the same was false, frivolous, vexatious and got-up one and that there was indeed no truth or substance in it. Further, according to respondent No. 3, on the contrary, it is his apprehension that this petition has been filed against him under the fear and pressure and at the instance of Vithal panchal who is in illicit relation with the petitioner his daughter Chetna. In fact, according to the respondent No. 3 on 14th July, 1995, petitioner herself had voluntarily handed over her child to Mahipatram Ashram and for that one declaration was also filed before the said authority wherein it is specifically mentioned that because of certain social reasons she was not interested in retaining the custody of her son Ravi, and therefore, she was handing over him to said Ashram which is run by Government. Not only that but the petitioner, in her said application has also further agreed and empowered the Government to do whatever it wanted to do for the purpose of taking care of her minor son, and that she will not take any objection to it. Under the circumstances, it was requested by respondent No. 3 that if this Court was still keen for production of child Ravi then in that case Mahipatram ashram may also be joined as necessary party to this proceedings and in turn be directed to produce the original record so that the real truth can come before this court, and for that purpose, may also join Superintendent of the Remand Home as a party to this proceedings, as from documentary evidence coming from the said authority before this Court, it could be pointed out as to how and when they came in possession of Ravi son of the petitioner, and in turn how he came to be adopted by some person. 3. 1 In view of the aforesaid reply-affidavit by the respondent No. 3, Mr. Jappi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner sought permission to amend the cause title by adding aforesaid two parties as newly added respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. Permission was granted and accordingly, notices were issued to the said newly added respondents, making it returnable on 1-9-1995, directing them to remain personally present before this Court alongwith the record of the case and the min