BIMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his daughter from the first wife is in illegal confinement of respondent nos. 4 and 5 being his father-in-law and mother-in-law from the first marriage. Thereafter, petitioner has performed second marriage. It is further contended that the petitioner being the natural guardian, he should be given the custody of the child.

(3.) In our view, it is not a matter in which cognizance could be taken by this Court under Article 226 especially for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus rather the petitioner is required to approach a competent court for redressal of his grievance including the issue of custody of child.