JUDGMENT

Jayachandran, J.

The petitioner is the paternal grand mother of two minors by name Erin TheresBijo and Evin Bijo Michael – the alleged detenues, who are alleged to be in illegal custody of the 1st respondent, the maternal uncle of the minors. The parents of the minors died in a motor vehicle accident on 07.06.2021. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing production of the two minors/the detenues before this Court and to give their custody to the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner would aver in the writ petition that the 1st respondent/uncle forcibly took away the minor children from the custody of the petitioner, upon completion of funeral of their parents. The petitioner was in a bad mental condition to pursue any action as against the said act. However, the petitioner used to contact the grand children over phone. On one occasion, the minor grand son insisted to come and stay with the petitioner and he was accordingly taken by the petitioner. However, 1st respondent attempted to forcibly take the children from the petitioner's custody, which was resisted by the petitioner. She preferred a complaint in this regard with the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner and 1st respondent to the Police Station. Due to political influence of the 1st respondent, the minor grand son was taken away from the custody of the petitioner by misleading the 2nd respondent/Police Officer. Even thereafter, the petitioner used to contact the grand children over phone. However, for the past two months, the grand children are not allowed to communicate with the petitioner even on phone. The 1st respondent preferred O.P(G&W) 509/2021 under the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking himself to be appointed as the guardian of the minor children, which is essentially for the purpose of opening a bank account for the children, so as to enable deposit of the compensation amount in O.P.(M.V) 622/2021. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is neither the natural guardian nor the appointed guardian of the minor grand children and therefore, the custody of the alleged detenues in the hands of the 1st respondent is illegal. On such premise, the petitioner seeks the relief above referred.

3. Heard Sri.M.K.Sumod, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

4. Having heard learned counsel, we are not persuaded to admit and proceed with the instant writ petition. We are not convinced that the attendant facts involve any illegal detention of the minors at the hands of the 1st respondent. It is admitted that the parents of the minors are not alive. The petitioner is the paternal grand mother and the 1st respondent is the maternal uncle of the minors. The custody of the minors with the maternal uncle cannot be treated as illegal by any reckoning. A writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in the absence of an illegal detention. The essential issue by and between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is regarding the custody of the minors, for which, the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional Family Court, in case, she is advised to do so. A writ petition in disguise of such remedy can hardly be countenanced.

Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE