- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Vide order dated 17.11.2014, the question, which was framed as a preliminary question is;
(2.) WHILE exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding habeas corpus writ petition the question of custody of a minor child would be decided by the High Court on the sole ground of relationship or the welfare of child would be the paramount consideration?
(3.) IN this case, the next friend Vijay Videshi of the alleged detenue Nandini @ Nikki aged about three years, is father and claiming himself to be the natural guardian. The alleged detenue is said to have been in the custody of respondent no.1 Smt. Shanti and respondent no.2 Shitla Prasad, who are the maternal grandmother (Nani) and material uncle (Mama) respectively of the alleged detenue. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the natural guardian is alive, the other person cannot be allowed to keep a child, even if, they are the parents or other family members of the mother of the child. He relied upon the judgement of this Court in case of Saroj Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,2013 2 JIC 652.;