Cr.W.P. No. 17 of 2010 9.11.2010 Present:- Mr. G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Jamalta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. Heard Mr. G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K.Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has come before this Court by way of present writ of Habeas corpus asking for the presence of Kumari Anjana Devi, aged 29 years. It has further been asserted by the petitioner in the petition that his daughter is not traceable since 2004. The respondent No.3 in her reply has very categorically stated that Kumari Anjana Devi is residing with her as respondent No.3 is the mother of Kumari Anjana Devi. In addition to this, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that such type of petition is an abuse of process of law and such petition should be dismissed with heavy costs. 3. In the facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for issuing any direction by way of Habeas corpus. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (R. B. Misra), Judge. November 9, 2010. (Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.