A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued where no illegal detention is established.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that her 9 year old son is being detained by the 3^rd respondent – who, she admits, is her mother- in-law. She asserts that there are matrimonial disputes between her and her husband; and that taking advantage of this, the child is being detained by the 3^rd respondent; hence, that she has been constrained to approach this Court, particularly since she has not been given any information about him for the last few months.

2. After we issued notice to the respondents, the parties offered to appear before us and they did so on 24.11.2025, when, after interacting with them, we passed the following order:

The petitioner, the 3rd respondent and the child were before us today. We found the child to be equally comfortable with his mother and paternal grandmother - namely the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, respectively.

2. The parties concede that there are some issues between the petitioner and her husband and that she has obtained an order of shared residence against him.

3. The 3rd respondent told us that, in order to obtain some solution, she is willing to stay temporarily, till the next posting date, with her nephew, so that the petitioner and the child can remain in the house. She explained that she is making thus suggestion so that the child can continue to attend classes, which is very close to her house. She added that her son - the husband of the petitioner, will be in India by the 30th of this month.

4. We, therefore, allow the petitioner to retain the interim custody of the child until the next posting date and to reside in the house qua which she has obtained protection order.

5. We further record that the 3rd respondent has agreed to shift her residence temporarily, until the next posting date, with her nephew at Kolenchery.

6. We adjourn this matter to be called on

02.12.2025, on which day all the parties, as also the son of the 3rd respondent (husband of the petitioner), shall be present with the child.

It is needless to say that the petitioner will ensure that the child does not lose any further classes.

3. Thereafter, on 02.12.2025, the son of the 3^rd respondent – namely the husband of the petitioner, was also present before us and the parties requested that they be referred to counselling, which was acceded to by us, allowing them to avail the facilities of the Family Counselling Centre of this Court. However, the report from the Counselor did not indicate a possibility of conciliation between the parties.

4. Therefore, on 03.12.2025, we again considered the matter and passed the following order: The parties were present personally before us today, along with the child.

2. Interestingly, the wife submitted that she has been living for the last few days in the house of the husband to take care of the child. We appreciate this.

3. However, the wife then added that, since the husband has come back, she has fear that he may trouble her.

4. The husband, however, submitted that he has no such intention and that the wife is welcome to stay in his house.

5. The wife, at this time, submitted that she is finding other employment and is likely to stay in a house closer to the school of the child, but wanted some more time to confirm this.

6. In the afore circumstances, we adjourn this matter to be called on 15.12.2025, recording that the wife will be allowed to stay with the husband so that the child will have access to both his parents until that date.

On the next posting date, the parties need not be present, though we require the wife to give us full details about her new employment and the place of residence, if it is to be altered.

5. Today also, the parties were before us, along with the child and we talked to the latter for a long time; but he made his preference to be with h