K. N. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners’ Smt. Sadhna Upadhyay learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned A.G.A. appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The habeas corpus petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ to produce petitioner No. 2 and set him at liberty and entrust the custody of petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1. The grounds set forth for the said prayer is that petitioner No. 1 Bal Kishan Rastogi is the father of Karan Rastogi petitioner No. 2, who is in illegal confinement of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the resident of Kayamganj, district Farrukhabad and carrying on the business of tobacco. He is the father and natural guardian of petitioner No. 2 who is aged about 7 years. The wife of the petitioner No. 1 was not keeping good health and as such he had permitted his sister Smt. Kamlesh Rastogi, the respondent No. 2, to look after the child. Dr. Reena Rastogi (respondent No. 1) is the daughter of respondent No. 2 and had been looking after the petitioner No. 2 since infancy. Smt. Savita Rastogi, wife of the petitioner No. 1 has now rec