RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- This Court is witnessing burgeoning of a child custody litigation in the recent past. Mother highlights the paternal deficiencies and the father vice-versa and when they get custody, each tries to denigrate the other parent. The children often get influenced by the indoctrinations of the parent in custody as against the vilified parent. In child custody cases, the result is most often a pyrrhic victory in which both sides lose, even though one may ostensibly the winner. Victory for whom?. It is often at the cost and life of the children. The parents are often unconcerned with the trauma and the psychological impact on the children.1-A. Petition for Habeas Corpus is also being filed seeking custody of the children. O.P. No. 20099 of 2001 is filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus by the mother of the children and for a direction to secure liberty of her children, Ananthu and Abhimanyu from the father and grandfather and restore their custody to her.

2. Habeas Corpus petition was filed placing reliance on the compromise decree passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 744 of 1998 on 19-3-2001 on a joint petition filed by the father and mother by which custody of the children was given to the petitioner. C.M.P. No. 6762 of 2001 in M.F.A. No. 744 of 1998 was filed by the fourth respondent in O.P. No. 20099 of 2001 to vary condition No. 2 in the petition filed under S. 13-B in the interest of justice and in paramount consideration of the welfare of the children and to give legal guardianship and custody of the minor children to the father.

3. Before we deal with the reliefs sought for in the above petitions, we have to examine the factual background in which these petitions have been filed. We will refer to the parties according to their status in the Habeas Corpus petition. Petitioner and fourth respondent got married on 1-9-1985. Two children by name Ananthu and Abhimanyu were born to them. Ananthu is now aged 14 and Abhimanyu 10. Second son Abhimanyu had a conjunctive cataract in his left eye and a surgery was performed when he was six months old at Aravind Eye-Hospital, Madurai. Children were all along staying with the parents till 1995. Disputes then cropped up between the petitioner and fourth respondent. Petitioner stayed away from the fourth respondent from January, 1995 onwards, but the children continued to be in the custody of the father. Father was looking after the welfare of the children all along. In other words, children were with the father except for a short while.

4. Fourth respondent in the year 1998 filed O.P. No. 24 of 1998 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram praying for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and harassment. Petitioner entered appearance before the Family Court, but no counter-affidavit was filed. Ultimately an ex-parte decree of divorce was passed on 31-1-2000. Fourth respondent then re-married on 16-4-2000. The ex-parte decree was however set aside at the instance of the petitioner.

5. Petitioner and fourth respondent had earlier filed a petition under S. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram as O.P. No. 203 of 1996. Petitioner however withdrew her consent to the joint petition dated 22-3-1996 and the same was therefore dismissed on 17-3-1998. Against the order of the Family Court, fourth respondent filed M.F.A. No. 744 of 1998 on 19-5-1998 seeking divorce on the ground that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably been broken down. When the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and the fourth respondent pointed out that a joint petition was filed by the parties under S. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court and that there was no justification in withdrawing the consent by the petitioner. It was pointed out that the parties had then agreed for a divorce on certain terms and conditions and they wanted to incorporate the terms and conditions and to pass decree of divorce