JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner seeks that her granddaughter (who will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘alleged detenue’) has been taken away against her wishes by her mother – the 5^th respondent, in connivance with respondents 6 and

7.

2. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian – learned counsel for the petitioner, however, conceded that both sides - namely the parents of the ‘alleged detenue’ - have filed independent Original Petitions before the learned Family Court, seeking permanent custody of the child. He, nevertheless, argued that, in spite of the afore, since the ‘alleged detenue’ has been taken away by respondents 5 to 7 without his client’s knowledge and permission, she is entitled to approach this Court seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

3. Sri.B.S.Syamanthak – learned Government Pleader, submitted that this Writ Petition is unnecessary because, the custody of the child – both final and interim - will have to be decided by the learned Family Court. He added that the custody battle appears to be attempted to be transmuted into a plea of Habeas Corpus before this Court; and pleaded that we exercise no jurisdiction, at least in this case.

4. There is force in the afore submissio