The petitioner father, approached the court alleging that his wife unlawfully and wrongfully removed their daughter from his custody. The wife, however, objected to the maintainability of the writ of Habeas Corpus, citing Vishnu Gupta vs State of MP. The bench however rejected wife's objection to maintainability of husband's habeas corpus plea and said that the high court in Vishnu Gupta had considered the scope of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Habeas Corpus. The court thus held that the writ of Habeas Corpus in the matter of custody of a minor child is maintainable, in the light of the Supreme Court judgments. The court further underscored that the "paramount consideration while exercising the writ of Habeas corpus for the change of custody of a child will be the welfare of the child".