JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, Sri Mithlesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner No. 2 has sought writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the corpus (petitioner No. 1), namely, Vinayak Tripathi before this Court and further prayed that the custody of the petitioner No. 1 may be handed over to the petitioner No. 2.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant Habeas Corpus petition. He submits that writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued where there is an statutory alternative remedy is available to the person aggrieved and as such if there is any grievance to the petitioner No. 2, he can take the recourse of invoking the relevant provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 32 of 1956') or he may approach the Court of civil competence. Further submitted that after the death of the mother, the child is gladly living wi