Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that her grandson of 5 years is being detained by the 7^th respondent – his mother, illegally and unlawfully.

2. As per the case of the petitioner - who is the paternal grandmother of the child (hereinafter referred to as the “alleged detenue”), the 7^th respondent is suffering from certain psychological issues - which she tries to establish through Ext.P1; then contending that the continued custody which she illegally asserts over the “alleged detenue” is illegal and unlawful.

3. The 7^th respondent was present before us today personally, along with the child; and we allowed the latter to be with the petitioner for some time.

4. We considered this matter after nearly an hour and a half later; and the learned counsel for the parties conceded that the child spent time with his grandmother, though he showed reluctance initially. We are told that the 7^th respondent also facilitated the interaction between the petitioner and the “alleged detenue”.

5. When we are called upon to consider a plea of writ of Habeas Corpus, we are only enjoined to decide whether the “alleged detenue” is under detention.

6. In this case, the “alleged detenue” - the child,