The best interests of the child and the willingness and intention of the child in custody disputes are crucial factors for the court to consider.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri R. K. Joshi and Shri Vikas Samadhiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3/State.

Shri Arvind Singh Rana, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5.

None for respondent No. 6.

Corpus is present in person along with Ms. Sanju Rajawat, Incharge, Child Care Center, Vinay Nagar, Gwalior. Petitioner as well as respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 are also present in person.

Presence of all stakeholders is marked on separate sheet, which shall be part and parcel of this order. With consent heard finally through physical hearing mode.

Present review petition is being preferred by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 22-7-2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9932/2021, whereby this Court while considering the writ petition of habeas corpus preferred by the present petitioner (for custody of his daughter/corpus), directed the corpus (Reet Dubey) to live along with her sisters namely Mohini Maheshwari and Chetana Sharma (respondents No. 4 and 5 herein). Occasion to file review arose in the wake of Writ Appeal preferred by the petitioner (father of corpus) against the order dated 22-7-2021 passed by this Court and by way of order dated 23-8-2021 passed in Writ Appeal No. 743/2021 the Writ Appellate Court remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh adjudication in view of U-turn taken by the corpus about conduct of her sisters as well as her intention to live with her father i.e. present petitioner.

2. Precisely stated facts as submitted and pleaded in the writ petition and review petition is that petitioner Kamal Kishore filed writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus, seeking direction for ensuring presence of corpus from alleged illegal confinement of respondents No. 4 and 5.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that daughter of petitioner/corpus is being kidnapped by respondents No. 4 and 5 against her will and they are not releasing her to live with petitioner, who happens to be the father of corpus. Before Writ Court, certain documents including photographs, Adhar Card, Will (notarized) dated 9-4-2021 of his alleged wife Premlata Dubey were produced and through said Will, his wife (and mother of corpus) described distribution of property including direction for corpus to live with the petitioner. As submitted, petitioner and mother of corpus namely Premlata entered into wedlock after death of her husband.

4. In writ proceedings, corpus appeared before this Court through video-conferencing along with her sisters Mohini Maheshwari and Chetana Sharma. At that time, she expressed her desire to live with her sisters. Considering the submission and intention of corpus, this Court directed respondents No.4 and 5 (Mohini Maheshwari and Chetana Sharma) to keep corpus with them till she attains majority with further direction that they will take care of her overall well being including her Education and Safety.

5. It appears that petitioner was not satisfied with the order so passed therefore, preferred writ appeal vide No. 743/2021 in which she took the stand that consent of corpus taken before the Writ Court (through video-conferencing) was under undue influence and coercion and in fact she never wanted to live with her sisters because of their conduct, doubtful integrity and misbehaviour. In writ appeal, it was the specific stand of petitioner as well as corpus who appeared through videoconferencing before Writ Appellate Court that she does not want to live with her sisters and wants to live with her father (present petitioner).

6. It appears that this fact persuaded learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal to give liberty to the petitioner to file review petition to demonstrate the facts specially U-turn taken by the corpus about her intention to live with petitioner. Resultantly, learned Court gave liberty to the petitioner to reiterate the facts again before the