1. Present petition has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No.2 to get released the detenues, namely Anvi, aged about 07 years and Reyansh, aged about 06 years, daughter and son of the petitioners, respectively, from the illegal detention of respondent No.3 - grandfather.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that petitioner No.1 is mother and petitioner No.2 is father of the alleged detenues, namely, Anvi and Reyansh, who are aged about 07 years and 06 years respectively. Further, after her marriage with petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1 was selected on the post of Nurse in District Level Cadre on 17.07.2022 and presently, she is posted at Civil Hospital, Kaithal and is residing with her husband - petitioner No.2 at Kaithal. It is further contended that respondent No.3, who is grandfather of the detenues, is working as Inspector in Haryana Police and he asked petitioner No.1 not to join the services of Nurse. However, when the petitioners did not agree, respondent No.3 illegally and without their consent, kept the detenues with him and he is extending threats to them of dire consequences, if they tried to take custody of the detenues and even he is not allowing the petitioners to meet the detenues. Furthermore, the detenues are studying in Mahatama Gandhi High School, Narwana, District Jind in Class 2nd and Class 1st, respectively and when the petitioners tried to meet the detenues even during school hours, they were not allowed to meet on the instructions of respondent No.3. For the last two years, the petitioners are trying to pacify respondent No.3 to hand over custody of the detenues to them being parents of the detenues, however, respondent No.3 did not bend to their request. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the tender age of the detenues, who are illegally kept confined by respondent No.3, they must be in custody of the petitioners being parents / natural guardians.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court today, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents No.1 and 2 - State.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the detenues are daughter and son of the petitioners, aged about 07 years and 06 years, respectively and presently, they are in custody of their grandfather i.e. respondent No.3.

6. This Court has noticed an increasing tendency amongst disgruntled parents and other family members to move a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus, in order to settle custody of the children. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, AIR 2019 SC 2318, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, has opined as follows:
"18. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.
19. In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may