Mohanan, J.
The grievance projected by the petitioner is that as per Ext.P1 order of the Family court, Vatakara, dated 4.5.2011 in O.P.No.90/11, though the said court has granted permanent custody of the child, namely Parvana, who is the daughter of the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner, the said order has been defeated by the 3rd respondent and hence the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus and to produce the said daughter of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the order of this Court in the above proceedings, the said detenue, namely Parvana - the W.P.(Crl.) No.182 of 2014 2 daughter of the petitioner, is produced before this Court and handed over to the petitioner and now the detenue is with the petitioner and as such the petitioner has no surviving grievance. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that, the above writ petition virtually became infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.