.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.631 OF 2008 Nishish Naresh Bagul and 3 Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors. ..Respondents. .. Mr.Sarang Kotwal, Adv. i/b. Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis, Adv. for the Petitioners. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. Respondent No.9 present in-person. .. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : MARCH 26, 2008. DATED : MARCH 26, 2008. DATED : MARCH 26, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. We have also heard the petitioners as well as respondent No.9 who is wife of petitioner No.1. 2. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.9 have two children i.e. one son Om @ Dhiren Nishish Bagul and one daughter Akanksha Nishish Bagul. Both the children are minor. The petitioner No.1 is the father of Om @ Dhiren and Akanksha, petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the brother of petitioner No.1. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that .{2}. respondent No.9 has taken away Om @ Dhiren who was residing with them. It is an admitted fact that when respondent No.9 went to the house of her parents, her son Om @ Dhiren was residing in the house of the petitioners. The contention of respondent No.9 is that thereafter when she came back to her matrimonial house she was not taken in by the petitioners and hence she returned back to the house of her parents. At that time also Om @ Dhiren continued to stay with the petitioners. However, thereafter respondent No.9 lodged a FIR against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC. The said FIR is registered as C.R.No.I-131 of 2008 at Nashik Road Police Station. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioners came to be arrested on 17th March, 2008. At that time, the minor child Om @ Dhiren was with the petitioners. As all the petitioners were taken into custody, the minor child Om @ Dhiren was handed over to respondent No.9 and since then Om @ Dhiren has been in the custody of respondent No.9. 4. Petitioners have filed the present Petition praying for the custody of minor child Om @ Dhiren. We have heard respondent No.9 at length and she has stated that she is willing to hand over the custody .{3}. of minor child Om @ Dhiren as well as minor daughter Akanksha to her husband i.e. petitioner No.1. Respondent No.9 has categorically stated that she has no objection to hand over custody of both the minor children to petitioner No.1. Accordingly, she has handed over two minor children to the petitioner. She has categorically stated that she has no objection to both her children residing with all the petitioners. However, respondent No.9 has stated that she should be allowed to meet the children i.e. she should be granted access to the children twice in a month, preferably on second and fourth Sunday. Respondent No.9 is allowed to take the children with her on that day in the morning at around 10:00 a.m. and she should hand over the custody of two minor children to the petitioners by 6:00 p.m.. The petitioners have stated that they have no objection to grant access to respondent No.9 to meet the minor two children, as set out above. 5. In view of the fact that the custody of both minor children, especially that of son Om @ Dhiren, is now handed over to the petitioners, this Petition for habeas corpus does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. .{4}. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]