JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -State.

3. Heard Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7.

4. The petitioner being the wife of respondent no. 7 has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking production and custody of her two minor children who are staying with respondent no. 7.

5. The entire allegation of the petitioner, as it appears from the present petition, is that the petitioner was staying with her husband in Tamil Nadu and the husband had kicked her out from her matrimonial home and forcibly retained her two minor children. It is also alleged by the petitioner, by referring to certain photograph annexed with the present petition, that the children are not being properly cared for by the Respondent no. 7 and they have suffered some injury while staying with the Respondent no. 7.

6. It is important to refer to order dated 24.10.2019 passed in the present case. On 24.10.2019 learned counsel for the respondent - husband of the petitioner, submitted that the husband of the petitioner is residing in Tamil Nadu and a prayer was made for seeking instruction in the matter of securing the presence of the respondent- husband before this Court. On such prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent, office was directed to place the matter on 14.11.2019 at 04.15 P.M. in chambers and both the parties (petitioner and the respondent - husband) were directed to be present before this Court on that date.

7. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 14.11.2019 wherein it has been recorded that the conciliation proceedings was taken up and the parties had agreed that the respondent No.7/ husband of the petitioner shall allow the petitioner/ wife to meet their minor sons at Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu in the presence of respondent No.6, i.e., the Officer-In-Charge, Tiruppur North Police Station, District Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu or any police personnel deputed by respondent No.06. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent husband to pay Rs. 50,000/- on or before 22.11.2019 to the petitioner towards expenses of the to and fro journey of the petitioner from Ranchi to Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu. Respondent No. 7 was also directed to ensure proper arrangement for accommodation of the petitioner either in his house at Tiruppur or at any other suitable place at Tiruppur for facilitating the meeting of the petitioner with her minor sons. It was also indicated that the petitioner shall intimate and inform the respondent -husband regarding the date of her visit to Tiruppur.

8. The order dated 14.11.2019 was duly complied with by the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and the petitioner has herself filed a supplementary-affidavit before this Court on 17.12.2019 wherein her meeting with her children at the police station in presence of police official including lady police officials has been mentioned. In this affidavit, the petitioner had raised a number of grievances against her husband- respondent no. 7 as to how he has been trying to mislead the children, but in this affidavit, nothing has been mentioned about the physical or mental condition of her minor children and no complaint about the well-being of the children has been made.

9. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 04.08.2021 and on that day also, the petitioner was fully heard and thereafter the counsel for the petitioner sought short time to obtain instructions on the question of seeking appropriate relief from the competent court of law in such a matter of custody of children. It is not in dispute that under normal circumstances, the courts constituted under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are available.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

10. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been instructed to argue the matter. Upon query of the court as to w