( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the two petitioners Shrimati Usha Devi Dixit and raviprakash Dixit, mother and father respectively, for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce their son Manish Dixit alias Babloo aged about 41/2 years and for his custody to them.

( 2 ) THE petitioners' case is this: They were married according to Hindu rites at kanpur on 3-7-1971. Out of their wedlock, Manish Dixit was born on 17-6-1972 equivalent Citation: and was living with the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 are the father and uncle of petitioner No. 2 who is living separate from them since 1967. The petitioners are living with Reva-shanker Dixit at Sehora since 20-6-1967. On 811- 1976, at 8. 30 p. m. , the respondents, armed with lathis, entered inside the house of the petitioners and forcibly took away their son Manish Dixit alias babloo in spite of their protests and against their wishes. Since then, their minor son is living with the respondents. The petitioners approached the police and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but to no effect. The petitioners are the legal and natural guardians of the minor son and his welfare would be adversely affected if he is allowed to remain with the respondents. The child, being of tender age, if allowed to remain with the respondents for a long time, is likely to suffer physically as well as mentally.

( 3 ) THIS application was supported by an affidavit of petitioner No. 1 as also by annexure 'a', report to the police lodged by Revashanker Dixit, uncle of petitioner No. 2, and Annexure 'b', notice sent to the respondents 1 and 2. Hence this petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus with the prayers for: (i) production of the child illegally and improperly detained, before this Court; and (ii) custody of the child to the petitioners.

( 4 ) THE respondents, in their return, supported by an affidavit, controverted the allegations of the petitioners. They, however, did not dispute the birth date of manish Dixit as being 17-6-1972 as also their being in custody of the minor child. They contended that petitioner No. 2 abandoned his wife after the birth of the child with the result that respondent No. 2 reared up the petitioner No. 1 and her son. This petition has been filed at the instance of Shrimati Urmila dixit, wife of Revashanker Dixit They contended that the child does not recognise its father nor has it received any paternal affection from him. The mother of respondents 1 and 2 is attached to the child and is rearing it up. Petitioner No. 1 who was a deserted wife, was educated by respondent No. 1. When she was busy with her studies, the child lived with its grand-mother. The petitioner No. 2 attempted to burn his wife and did not see the child after three months of its birth. The relations of the parties compelled the petitioner No. 2 to keep the petitioner No. 1 with him. The compromise between petitioners 1 and 2 was brought about by the intervention of Shri Sachchidanand Awasthi advocate.

( 5 ) THE respondents further alleged that the condition of petitioner No. 1 is like a prisoner who is not permitted to contact her relations or to have correspondence with them. In the circumstances, she is unable to rear up the child. Petitioner No. 2 beats the child and the behaviour of Revashanker Dixit and his wife towards the child was not cordial and, therefore, the child was afraid of them and entreated that it should not be sent to live with its parents. Petitioner No. 2 forcibly took away the child on 8-12-1976 from Jabalpur when it was with its grand-mother and took it to Sehora. This seriously affected the health of the grand-mother and there was danger to her life. Therefore, under the direction of the grand-mother, the respondents 2 and 4 went to the equivalent Citation: petitioners at Sehora and entreated them to return the child. There they learnt that petitioner No. 2 had mercilessly beaten the child and kept it confined inside a room. The respondents heard the crie