The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the mother's role in providing care is crucial.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Habeas Corpus writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Arahat Bhaskar (Minor) 'corpus', aged about 7 years, through her natural guardian, mother, Smt. Vandana Maurya, petitioner no. 2, against the respondent no. 1 to 4, praying for a direction in the nature of habeas corpus, to the respondent no. 2, Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, District-Jhansi, to produce the corpus namely Arahat Bhaskar (minor), before this Court and set up his liberty kept in custody of respondent no. 4, Shailendra Kumar Singh, father of the corpus, and further for issuance of a direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, District Jhansi and Station House Office, Police Station Kotwali, District-Jhansi, to protect their lives.

2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:

3. Petitioner no.2, Vandana Maurya, was married with respondent no. 4 on 05.05.2013 and from their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child on 26.10.2015; he was admitted to class LKG-K, for the Session 2020-21 in Dream India School-Orai, Uttar Pradesh; After some time, dispute arose between both spouses and on 23.11.2021 a case no. 927 of 2021, under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act was preferred before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. The petitioner No. 2 also filed an application on 23.11.2021; under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the case No. 1063 of 2021, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, on 23.11.2021; her husband, Shailendra Kumar Singh, respondent no. 4, is in Uttar Pradesh Police and presently posted as incharge Inspector, Police Station-Bazarkhala, District-Lucknow. Since, respondent no. 4, being in police, he regularly threatens her for life and for protection of the family, she informed the police authorities through various letters.

4. Petitioners have also averred that on 26.03.2022, the petitioner no. 2, Vandana Maurya, attended a marriage ceremony along with her minor son (petitioner no. 1) in the village Bainipura, Police Station Rampura, District-Jalaun; her husband, respondent no. 4, appeared in the marriage ceremony without any invitation and wanted to take minor son with him forcibly, on her intervention, the respondent no. 4 put his pistol on her head threatening that if the child was not given to him he will shoot her; eventually, respondent no. 4 took with him the child forcibly. Since the matter is pending before the Court hence he has developed grudge against her; it is also averred that the child be returned to her as he is her life and her life is not safe as her husband is in the Police force and holding an influential position.

5. Petitioner no. 2 presented a complaint on 26.03.2002 itself to the in charge Police Station-Rampura, District-Jalaun, narrating the occurrence dated 26.03.2022; she also stated that her son who was taken by her husband, forcibly, with him, be recovered and be given in her custody. She also made online complaint through IGRS on 28.03.2022 to Commissioner Lucknow and Superintendent of Police Jalaun, informing them about the incident took place during marriage ceremony. During her living with her husband he had subjected her to mental and physical torture but none of the police authorities has acted upon her complaints. It is stated that she is employed as staff nurse on contract basis and as such getting the salary by which she can also maintain her child; Since her child is aged about seven years and is in illegal custody of her husband/ respondent no. 4, therefore, in view of the above the petitioner no. 1 (son), in the facts and circumstances of the case, needs to remain in her custody; since her suits, as mentioned above, before the Principal Judge, Family Court Jhansi, shall take time for their final adjudication, therefore, the petitioners are left with no other efficacious and speedy alternative remedy except to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under which h