JUDGMENT

Jayachandran, J.

This writ petition stems from the marital discord between the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing respondents 1 and 2, the Police officers concerned, to produce the petitioner's child, Salmanul Farisi, aged 10 years from the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4 (the maternal grand father and grand mother respectively).

2. The petitioner would allege that he was working abroad for the past more than 8 years and that he married Sajna, the daughter of respondents 3 and 4 on 05.03.2009. A boy child (alleged detenue) was born in the wedlock, who is presently 10 years old. The petitioner helped his wife to get a job in UAE. However, disputes and dissensions developed between them. In July 2019, the petitioner's wife returned to Kerala, leaving the son with the petitioner. The petitioner looked after all the affairs of his son. In December 2019, the petitioner's wife came back to Ras Al Khaimah on a visiting visa and joined as receptionist in a hospital. She used to visit the child twice or thrice in a week. When the petitioner's wife expressed her interest to take the son with her, the petitioner agreed. While so, the petitioner's wife, left to her native place with her child, without informing the petitioner. As requested by the petitioner's son, the petitioner arranged to give an electronic tablet to enable his studies. When the petitioner's younger brother went to deliver the tablet, he saw the child frightened. The petitioner's brother was not permitted by respondents 3 and 4, even to talk with the child. According to the petitioner, his son is in illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner's wife had gone back to UAE and she is working there. The petitioner being the father, is entitled to custody of the said child. On such premise, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no illegal detention of the petitioner's son. Even as per the very showing in the writ petition, the petitioner's son left UAE along with none other than his wife and he is presently in the custody of his maternal grand parents, as per the mother's wish and instructions. Such custody of the child with respondents 3 and 4, the maternal grand parents, cannot be held to be illegal.

4. In the absence of an illegal detention, we find no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioner has to work out his remedy for custody of his child before the jurisdictional Family Court.

Reserving the petitioner's liberty to do so, this writ petition is dismissed, inlimine.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE