Pritinker Diwaker, J.

As the pleadings are complete, with the consent of parties, this petition is being heard finally.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, inter alia, mentioning therein that petitioner Manuj Sharma is a husband of respondent no.7-Smt. Priya Sharma, their marriage was solemnized on 24.4.2008 at Agra and out of the wedlock, the couple has two issues, namely, Km. Shravya Sharma, aged about 8 1/2 years and Km. Tvisha, aged about 2 1/2 years. According to petitioner, respondent nos.5 and 6 are in illegal custody of their mother, respondent no.7, and are not in a position to think about their welfare. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide legal custody of respondent nos.5 and 6 (minor children) to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent no.7 is living in adultery with respondent no.8 and as such, she is not taking care of respondent nos.5 and 6. The financial condition of the petitioner is much superior than that of respondent no.7 and, therefore, also, considering the welfare of children, they may be given in the custody of the petitioner. While referring to the various documents, an attempt has been made that respondent no.7 is not a responsible lady, a woman of loose character, and as such, she cannot take care of respondent nos.5 and 6. It has been pointed out that respondent nos.5 and 6 were admitted in a reputed School at Agra, but as respondent no.7 had left Agra, neither respondent nos.5 and 6 are attending the School, nor respondent no.7 is taking their proper care. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gohar Begum v. Suggi alias Nazma Begum, (1960) AIR SC 93 (V 47 C 16) and Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr Rukhsana & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 247, it has been argued that paramount consideration should be 'welfare of children' and when the petitioner has succeeded in satisfying this Court that if the children are allowed to remain in the custody of respondent no.7, their welfare would be totally ignored and their future would be spoiled.

4. On the other hand, opposing the submissions of the petitioner, it has been argued on behalf of respondent no.7 that she and her two minor children were ill treated by the petitioner and his family members and respondent no.7 was literally ousted. Respondent no.7 had made several efforts to get the matter amicably settled, but the petitioner and his family members are adamant to harass her and they are making all sort of frivolous allegations against her, including that of assassinating her character.

Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.9-Archana Kumar is a best friend of respondent no.7, whereas respondent no.8-Sachit Kumar is a brother of Archana Kumar and it is they, who gave shelter to respondent no.7 during her difficult time and now allegations are being made against her that she is having illicit relation with respondent no.8. While referring to Annexure no.1 filed along with counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that on 22.12.2018, a detailed complaint was made to the Additional Director General of Police, copy of which was also sent to other police officials through e-mail and post mentioning therein about the ill-treatment being meted out to respondent no.7 and the attitude of the petitioner. He further submits that a writ of habeas corpus, in the facts and circumstances, is not maintainable and if the petitioner has any grievance, he ought to have approached the appropriate Court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act.

5. We have asked specific question to the counsel for the petitioner, as to how the daughters of the petitioner can be said to be in unlawful custody of their mother (respondent no.7) and most importantly, when both the children are minor and they are in lawful custody of their mother, whether this Court can issue a writ o