Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Dharm Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General alongwith Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
(2.) The present petition has been filed for a writ of habeas corpus praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus before this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner no.1 be allowed to remain in the company of the petitioner no.2. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to resolve the matrimonial dispute, if any, by amicable dialogue, mediation or court expeditiously and the visiting rights be granted to the petitioner no.2 as he is being denied access to meet his child. (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) award cost of the petition to the petitioners."
(3.) The order sheet of the case indicates that at the very outset when the case was taken up on 27.02.2020, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.2 did not want the custody of the corpus i.e. the petitioner no.1 and that he was pressing the petition only for visitation rights. The aforementioned contention as noticed in the order dated 27.02.2020 is as follows:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that petitioner no. 2 does not want the custody of corpus, petitioner no. 1 as he is in the custody of his mother, respondent No. 4, but being father of corpus, he is only pressing this petition for visitation right." ;