( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, and Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. It is alleged by the petitioner that she was married to Yadav Krishna, respondent 1, on 7 March 1964 according to Hindu rites. They have two children; Shyam aged about 2-1/2 years and Ramoo about 5 months. The husband is a lecturer in the Government higher Secondary School, Dongaragarh, district Durg. The parents of the petitioner reside at Jabalpur. Because of his ill-treatment. she came to Jabalpur for her first delivery. This was with the permission of her husband, but she wanted an assurance of good behaviour to be given to her, before she would return. The husband then instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of the District Judge, Rajanandgaon. This was in March 1966. But, when he came to Jabalpur in June 1966, there was conciliation in the presence of respectable persons. She then agreed to go and stay with him, provided he withdrew the suit. That was done. She went back and started living and cohabiting with him at Dongargarh.

( 2 ) SHE further alleges that he again started ill-treating and beating her and also threatened to kill her. In the meanwhile, she again conceived and, to help her in her delivery, her mother was called from Jabalpur. Her father also went there to see her. On 25 October 1967, the younger child was delivered. On 3rd December 1967, the husband quarrelled with the petitioner and her parents and threw out the luggage of her parents and pushed her out of the house saying that he no more wanted her or any relations of her to live with him. She resisted but she was forcibly turned out. She wanted her children to accompany her but they werp forcibly kept back by the husband.

( 3 ) IN these circumstances, she alleges that the children are under illegal and unlawful detention of their father inasmuch as under the law she is entitled to their custody and that the welfare of the minor children lies in their staying with her.

( 4 ) SHRIMATI Kejabai (respondent 2) is the sister of Yadav Krishna; Sambaroo Ram (respondent 3) is his brother-in-law Yadav Krishna has kept Ramoo, the younger child, with them and is under their care.

( 5 ) YADAV Krishna opposes this petition. In the return filed by him, he inter alia denies that he ever ill-treated the petitioner. He says that she being the only child of her parents, the latter want him to stay with them, but to this he does not agree. This seems to be the rift in the lute between him and the petitioner. He says that the children were left by he petitioner herself, and that they are being looked after very wall. He denies that it will be in the interest of the children that they live with the petitioner. He says that Ramoo is not with respondent 2 or 3 but he has kept the Dutt (?) under the care of his paternal aunt at Raipur. Her name has not been disclosed.

( 6 ) WHEN this petition came up for hearing, Shri Dutt for the petitioner and Shri padhye for Yadav Krishna made a sincere and prolonged endeavour for reconciliation. It is remarkable that neither side has anything to say against the moral character of the other. It is quite clear that they are not carrying on well with each other, but the cause of this seems to be petty domestic quarrels. Although the present proceeding is not under the Hindu Marriage Act, or the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, it appeared that if the parties came to an amicable settlement, it would be in the interests of both the children and this petition would become infructuous. But, ultimately, learned counsel stated that the parties could not come to terms amicably.

( 7 ) THE writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, i. e. , you have the body to submit or answer, is commonly known as the writ of habeas corpus. It is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effect