Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Manilal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms.Sreelatha Parameswaran, learned Special Government Pleader.

2. The statement of facts submitted by the Inspector of Police, Erattupetta Police Station, is taken on record.

3. Ms. Saina Fathima, representing Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, appears and submits that, although formal notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, she has been instructed by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned to appear on behalf of the 3rd respondent. She further undertakes to file the vakalath on behalf of the 3rd respondent in the course of the day. In view of the said undertaking, we permit the 3rd respondent to be represented by Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor.

4. In the report, it is stated that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have been living separately since 2022 and that the child has been residing with the 3rd respondent. Prima facie, we do not find that the minor child is under any illegal detention. However, having regard to the fact that the matter is presently seized by the Family Court concerned, and as the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the child is not being produced before the Family Court, we direct the 3rd respondent to produce the child before the Family Court on the date to be fixed by the said Court pursuant to this order. The Family Court shall decide the issue of custody of the child in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Others (Judgment dated 1st June, 2026 in WP(Crl.) No.820 of 2026).

                  The W.P.(Crl) stands disposed of accordingly.