JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Rosemarry Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel for the private respondent, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. Instant habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner no. 2 Abhishek Shukla on behalf of the corpus Arav Shukla, who is his minor son, against state respondent and respondent no. 3 (the mother of the corpus and wife of petitioner no. 2) with following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondent no. 3 to produce the petitioner no. 1 in the Hon’ble Court and thereafter the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give the custody of the petitioner no. 1 to the petitioner no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in petitioner no. 2 right to meet his son.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To allow the writ petition and award the cost in favour of the petitioner.

3. During pendency