Pritinker Diwaker, J. - (1.) As the pleadings are complete, with the consent of parties, this petition is being heard finally.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, inter alia, mentioning therein that petitioner Manuj Sharma is a husband of respondent no.7-Smt. Priya Sharma, their marriage was solemnized on 24.4.2008 at Agra and out of the wedlock, the couple has two issues, namely, Km. Shravya Sharma, aged about 8 1/2 years and Km. Tvisha, aged about 2 1/2 years. According to petitioner, respondent nos.5 and 6 are in illegal custody of their mother, respondent no.7, and are not in a position to think about their welfare. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide legal custody of respondent nos.5 and 6 (minor children) to him.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent no.7 is living in adultery with respondent no.8 and as such, she is not taking care of respondent nos.5 and 6. The financial condition of the petitioner is much superior than that of respondent no.7 and, therefore, also, considering the welfare of children, they may be given in the custody of the petitioner. While referring to the various documents, an attempt has been made that respondent no.7 is not a responsible lady, a woman of loose character, and as such, she cannot take care of respondent nos.5 and 6. It has been pointed out that respondent nos.5 and 6 were admitted in a reputed School at Agra, but as respondent no.7 had left Agra, neither respondent nos.5 and 6 are attending the School, nor respondent no.7 is taking their proper care. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gohar Begum v. Suggi alias Nazma Begum, 1960 AIR(SC) 93 (V 47 C 16) and Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr Rukhsana & Ors., 2001 5 SCC 247 , it has been argued that paramount consideration should be 'welfare of children' and when the petitioner has succeeded in satisfying this Court that if the children are allowed to remain in the custody of respondent no.7, their welfare would be totally ignored and their future would be spoiled.;