ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J.)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2.The Habeas Corpus petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's minor sons, Asghar Ahamed, son of Mohamed Ismail Galeel, aged about 10 years and Mujahid, son of Mohamed Ismail Galeel, aged about 4 years, before this Court and hand over their custody to the petitioner.

3.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the mother and the third respondent is the father of the alleged detenues herein.

4.The petitioner has stated in the accompanying affidavit that the marriage between herself and the third respondent had taken place nearly 10 years prior to the filing of the Habeas Corpus petition and out of the said wedlock, the minors, Asghar Ahamed and Mujahid, were born to them. Subsequently, due to some misunderstanding arose between the petitioner and the third respondent, the third respondent pronounced 'talaq' whereby, divorced the petitioner herein. It was submitted before this Court that after pronouncing 'talaq' by the third respondent, the petitioner herein, married another person after observing 40 days idat as per Mohammedan Law. It is also not in dispute that the third respondent married another woman subsequently. On the said circumstances, the petitioner herein has come forward with this Habeas Corpus petition, seeking an order to secure the presence of her minor children from the illegal custody detention of the third respondent. Normally Habeas Corpus petition would not be maintainable when the custody is with the natural guardian.

5.It is also argued on behalf of the third respondent that he being the natural guardian of the minor children, his custody of the minor children cannot be construed as illegal detention and hence, the Habeas Corpus petition itself is not legally maintainable.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is some urgency, considering the welfare of the minor children, as they are virtually in the custody of some other person though the petitioner, mother of the children is alive.

7.Having considered the age of the minor children and also the facts and circumstances, this Court directed the respondents 1 and 2 to secure the presence of the minor children, Asghar Ahamed and Mujahid. It was also informed that the petitioner is in the family way through her second husband at present. The divorce between the petitioner and the third respondent and their respective subsequent marriages are nothing to do for deciding the Habeas Corpus petition, as the fact remains that the petitioner and the third respondent are mother and father respectively of the minor children.

8.Today, in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the third respondent appeared before this Court with the minor children and the petitioner is also present in the open Court.

9.Having considered the facts and circumstances, this Court find it just and reasonable to settle the matter amicably by consensus. Accordingly, Mr.R.Gowri Shankar, a practising advocate of this Court, was appointed as Honorary mediator and the matter was passed over, called again after lunch. After the mediation, the petitioner and the third respondent have consensus to have an amicable settlement and accordingly the same was reduced into writing in the form of joint compromise memo, signed by both the parties, their respective counsel and the mediator, Mr.R.Gowri Shankar. The said joint compromise memo reads as follows:

"1.The father, the third respondent herein is ready to hand over his younger son namely Mujahid to hismothe