Court emphasizes the welfare of the child in custody matters while maintaining jurisdictional limits.

1. Case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by seeking following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to appear personally before this Hon'ble Court and to produce corpus child namely Shradha Kannaujia (Minor) from the custody of the respondent no. 4 to 6.
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to handover in the custody of minor child (corpus) to her mother / petitioner no. 2 and ensure the life of corpus (minor child).
iii. Issue such other further writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case.
iv. Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 is mother of corpus / minor girl, aged four years. The marriage of petitioner No. 2 with respondent No. 4 has taken place in the year 2014 and they were blessed with a girl child on 18.11.2016. Learned counsel argued that petitioner No. 2 was harassed by her husband and other private respondents and on 26.09.2020 they have driven her out from the matrimonial home and her minor girl (corpus) was snatched by the private respondents. It was submitted that the respondent No. 4 is not treating the petitioner No. 1 well and that she has been illegally detained by the respondent No. 4 to 6. In this connection the petitioner No. 2 has approached police authorities but of no avail. No information is being given to the petitioner No. 2 regarding petitioner No. 1. It was submitted that the custody of petitioner No. 1 be handed over to the petitioner No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the private respondents has opposed.

6. Perusal of record shows that in pursuance to earlier order, the petitioner No. 1 / corpus was produced before this Court by the respondent No. 4, however as she is a minor child of four years age, thus, it was found difficult to ascertain her wishes. The petitioner No. 2 is mother of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 is her father. It appears that there has been some matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 4 and that a petition under S.13B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce has already been filed.

7. It is well settled that writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. The object and scope of a writ of habeas corpus in the context of a claim relating to custody of a minor child fell for consideration in case of Sayed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana , (2001) 5 SCC 247 and it was held that in a habeas corpus petition seeking transfer of custody of a child from one parent to the other, the principal consideration for the court would be to ascertain whether the custody of the child can be said to be unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the child requires that the present custody should be changed. In said case it was held as under: -
'11. ¦it is clear that in an application seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for custody of minor children the principal consideration for the Court is to ascertain whether the custody of the children can be said to be unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the children requires that present custody should be changed and the children should be left in care and custody of somebody else. The principle is well sett