K.Harilal, J.

1.The petitioner and the first respondent are

husband and wife and the alleged detenu is the

child, aged 2 years, born to them in the said

wedlock. According to the petitioner, after the

birth of the their son, when he attained six

months old, he was taken away by the first

respondent and the petitioner was thrown out of

the matrimonial home, without any reason.

Thereafter, the first respondent is denying the

right of the child as well as the petitioner to

live together, by making them separate at the

tender age of the child. Hence, she sought for

the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to

produce the alleged detenu before this court and

3

handover the custody of the child to her.

2.In compliance with the interim order of this

court dated 9.8.2019, the alleged detenu has

been produced before this court by the first

respondent.

We have interacted with the

petitioner and the first respondent. During the

course of interaction, the first respondent

stated before us that the allegations of

unlawful detention is untrue and absolutely

false. According to him, the petitioner is

undergoing treatment for some psychological

problem and the petitioner herself went out of

the matrimonial home on 24.9.2018 and thereafter

she left the matrimonial home leaving the child

in the matrimonial home. After that, the

petitioner is frequently visiting the child in

the matrimonial home and they have not

4

obstructed the right of the petitioner to visit

the child or having interaction with the child.

Lastly, the petitioner came to the matrimonial

home and interacted with the child on 6.8.2019.

3.The petitioner stated before us that she was

undergoing treatment for psychological problem

and now she is fit for having the custody of the

child. In view of the facts elicited from the

interaction of both the petitioner and the first

respondent, we find that the dispute is a

matrimonial dispute with respect to the custody

of the child, falling under the jurisdiction and

power of the family court. It is not just and

proper to decide the custody of the child in

exercise of writ jurisdiction, under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is

no circumstance warranting invocation of writ

5

jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Both parties are at

liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the

family court, in accordance with law, if they

are aggrieved in respect of the custody of the

child.

4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN

sl.

JUDGE