A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued to challenge an order passed by a competent civil court appointing guardians for minor children, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the order in the manner known to law before the competent court.

K.M. NATARAJAN, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents 3 and 4 to produce the minor children (male child Haribaskar, aged about 7 years, and female child Lavanya, aged about 5 years) before this Court and direct their custody to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows : It is the admitted case of both parties that the petitioners daughter Pushpalatha was married to one Dhandapani who is the son of respondents 1 and 2, on 12-12-1982. The petitioners daughter died on 18-3-1988. Subsequently, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, W.P. No. 10945 of 1988, for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, this Court gave direction for admitting minor Haribaskar in Bala Mandir, Madras, till the question also who is entitled to custody of him is decided by competent civil Court. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 10 of 1989 against the father of the minor children claiming custody of the children, before the District Court, West Thanjavur. While the said O.P. No. 10 of 1989 was pending, Dhandapani, the father of the minor children, died in a road accident on 29-11-1989. Thereupon, the District Judge, West Thanjavur, allowed the said O.P. No. 10 of 1989 and appointed the petitioner as guardian of the minors, without impleading the legal representatives of Dhandapani, who is the father of the children. On a revision petition filed by the first respondent herein in C.R.P. No. 918 of 1990, this Court set aside the said order and directed impleading of respondents 1 and 2 herein as parties to O.P. No. 10 of 1989. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 28 of 1990 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore, for appointing them as guardian of the minor children. O.P. No. 10 of 1989 filed by the petitioner on the file of the District Court, West Thanjavur was transferred to the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, and both the O.Ps. were tried jointly. While the said Original Petitions were pending, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16051 of 1989 for custody of the children from respondents 1 and 2. This Court dismissed the said writ petition directing the learned District Judge, Cuddalore, to dispose of the O.P. within three months, since the civil Court has taken cognizance of the matter and a petition for appointment of guardian is pending before competent Court and the said Court has to decide the issue after taking into consideration all the circumstances with regard to the welfare of the minors and to decide the question as to who would be entitled to custody of the children. Since the petitioner did not appear in Court in spite of number of adjournments granted, he was set ex parte, and the District Judge, Cuddalore, appointed respondents 1 and 2 as guardians for minors. It was further ordered that it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to take the minor Haribaskar from Bala Mandir, Madras, and bring him along with them while the second child is already in the custody of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order passed in the said O.P. He has also filed a petition for stay of the orders and the matter is pending now before the said Court. But, no orders have been passed. In pursuance of the order of the learned District Judge Cuddalore, respondents 1 and 2 got custody of the minor Haribaskar from Bala Mandir. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are aged and they are not in a position to look after the children. He has reliably learnt that the children were not given proper education and care and if the children are allowed to stay in the village, the safety of the children will be seriously in jeopardy and as such the custody of the children should be handed over to him.

.3. The said petition was stoutly opposed by respondents 1 and 2 and they have stated that even since t