The court's decision emphasized the importance of resolving the dispute over guardianship and visitation rights through the appropriate legal channels.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct 1st and 2nd respondents to produce the petitioner''s minor Children viz ''xxx'', son of Hajarudeen aged about 3 years and ''yyy'', son of Hajarudeen, aged about 11 months from the custody of the third respondent before this Court and handover them to the petitioner.)

M. Sundar, J.,

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed on 13.03.2023 (to be noted, 13.03.2023 according to the coding sheet and 14.03.2023 if one goes by the High Court seal) regarding two children (to be noted, one child and one infant) of the petitioner ''xxx'' and ''yyy'' (we are masking the names and we shall be referring to these two child and infant collectively as ''absentees'') and with regard to individual references, we shall refer to them as ''child absentee'' and ''infant absentee'' for the sake of convenience.

2. Mr.S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, who is before us, submits that petitioner''s wife died on 17.06.2022, at the time when the petitioner''s wife was undergoing treatment in the hospital (obviously prior to demise), the absentees were in the care and custody of the third respondent, who is none other than petitioner''s mother-in-law i.e., mother of the petitioner''s deceased wife.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is the natural guardian of the absentees and the petitioner is entitled to guardianship and visitation rights. Considering that this is a habeas corpus legal drill we deem it appropriate to not to express any view or opinion on this submission. To be noted, we propose to leave it open to the parties to approach appropriate Court/Courts/Forum/Fora qua guardianship.

4. The third respondent was present and Respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents) were represented by Mr.R.Muniyappraj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate.

5. We had a brief interaction with the third respondent. Third respondent submitted that she has another daughter, who is younger to the deceased wife of the petitioner and she and her younger daughter have been care givers for the infant absentee as the infant absentee is with them from the time of birth. We express no opinion on this aspect of the matter also for the self-same reason which we have set out supra.

6. Be that as it may, we find that the date of demise of petitioner''s wife is 17.06.2022 and the captioned HCP has been filed in this Court only on 13.03.2023/14.03.2023, almost nine months later. This fact also has weighed in the mind of this Court qua conclusion infra. We also remind ourselves that a HCP is a high prerogative writ.

7. In the light of the narrative thus far, as we find that it is a tussle for guardianship between father and maternal grandmother of the absentees, we deem it appropriate to leave open all the rights and contentions of the parties, more particularly the petitioner, third respondent and all others concerned for approaching the appropriate Court/Courts/Forum/Fora.

8. This means that curtains are down on the captioned HCP. Captioned HCP disposed of as closed albeit preserving the rights of all the parties in the aforesaid manner.