the appellant-grandmother had illegally kept the custody of the minor child. It is the respondent-father who had placed the custody of the minor child with the appellant- grandmother. 19. We are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have entertained the habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since a detailed enquiry including the welfare of the minor child and his preference would have been involved, such an exercise could be done only in a proceeding under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 20. In any case, we are of the view that compelling a minor child at the tender age of 7 years to withdraw from the custody of his grandparents with whom he has been living for the last about 5 years may cause psychological disturbances. 21. In our view, an exercise for promoting the bond between the minor child and the respondent-father in a graded manner and 18thereafter