( 1 ) THIS is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of a habeas corpus for production of the newly born male child in court and a direction for giving custody of the same to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner, Smt. Veena agarwal, aged 24 years, is M. A. in Hindi and is the daughter of Shri Amar-nath, who is Officer inoharge of the Punjab National Bank drawing a salary of Rs. 1500. 00 per month, She was married to the respondent, Prahlad Das Agarwal on 28-1-1973, who is at present a lecturer in P, G. Degree College, Satna. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner and her husband belong to respectable families. The male child whose custody is sought was born to the petitioner on 29-5-1975 at Satna. On 6-6-1975, serious difference arose between the husband and wife and according to the petitioner after giving a 'beating by her husband she was driven out from the house and the infant child was snatched from her custody by her husband. The petitioner went to the house of her parents at Parikshatgarh where her father is at present posted. According to the petitioner, she again joined her husband at Satna on 23rd June, 1975 in spite of her apprehensions that she would be maltreated and humiliated looking to the sense of desire expressed by the respondent for starting a new life for the sake of her child. On 9-8-1975, the petitioner was again beaten by her husband and driven out of the house. A report of the incident was lodged by the petitioner at police Kotvali Satna (Annexure A ). On the intervention of the police, she lived in the house of the respondent till some one from her parents could come to take her, because of her shattered health. However, the petitioner's father and brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) came to Satna on 12-8-1975. The persuasions did not prevail with the respondent and his family and the petitioner had to leave the house of her husband with a broken heart leaving the child, who was refused to be handed over to her by her husband. According to the petitioner, the child being in the feeding state from the mother's milk and there being nobody to look after it in the house of the respondent, she entertains an apprehension that in the absence of proper care the child would be deprived of the love and care of the mother which the respondent-father cannot in any case provide to him and she being his mother is entitled to his custody. According to her, the detention of the male child by the respondent is illegal, unwarranted and manifestly unjustified and she being the mother is best entitled to the custody of the child looking to his age.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the respondent-husband has come out with various allegations in his return against the petitioner which we need not repeat here being irrelevant to the issue involved. According to him, the child is being well looked after and his mother would be staying with him and he would also engage an Ayah to look after his son. The respondent has further pleaded that handing over of the child to the custody of the petitioner would not be in the interest of the child. He has, therefore, pleaded for the rejection of the petition.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 23-10-1975, we allowed time to the parties for reconciliation on the request of the learned counsel of the respective parties and, therefore, the hearing was adjourned for the next day. On 24-101975, when the matter again came up for hearing, we were informed that the reconciliation could not be arrived at. We also tried our best to bring about a reconciliation but the efforts were fruitless. In the circumstances, we were left with no option but to decide this petition on merits.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel of the parties, we are of opinion that this petition must be allowed. At the outset we would like to mention that in the nature of the present case it is not at all necessary