In a habeas corpus writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court regarding the custody of a 3.5 year old child, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain disposed of the petition while granting the child’s custody to the mother with visitation rights to the father.
The Court interacted with respondent 4 (father) who disclosed that he was employed with the World Bank, Delhi and was earning approximately Rs. 4.5 lakh. He submitted that he had admitted the minor corpus to a school in Faridabad and that he was taken from his custody at Faridabad, which is why the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition.
The petitioner (mother) disclosed that till April 2026, the minor corpus had been residing with her and she had admitted the minor child to a school at Ghaziabad from where respondent 4 allegedly took him into his custody without her knowledge or consent. She also submitted that she was working as an environmental engineer in Mumbai and was earning approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month, and that her parents would look after the child during her working hours.
ALSO READ: ITAT: PCIT Cannot Exercise Section 263 Revisional Powers for Mere ‘Inadequate Enquiry’
The Court found that the mother shared a strong emotional bond with the 3.5 year old child as the minor remained comfortable and at ease in her company. It was noted that the petitioner was admitted to a school in Ghaziabad, the fees for which was being paid by the petitioner. It was also noted that after a dispute arose between the parents regarding the child’s custody, they appeared before police authorities and established a compromise that they would both have the child’s custody every alternate month.
The Court stated that the child was residing with the petitioner and was taken away by the father on 03-04-2026, which meant that a cause of action had undeniably arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Referring to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Court stated that there was nothing on record to disentitle the petitioner from having the child’s custody.
Although the Court could not treat the child’s preference as determinative due to his tender age, the Court noted that his conduct and demeanour reflected that he was emotionally attached to, and felt secure with his mother. Hence, the Court held that the child’s welfare would be best served in the mother’s custody.
The Court tried for a reconciliation between the spouses, but did not succeed in persuading them to reside together for the paramount welfare of the child. Thus, the child’s custody was handed over to the mother and to maintain the emotional bonding between the father and child, the Court granted him visitation rights after an assurance from the mother that she would not create any hindrance in such interaction. Lastly, the father was also entitled to claim the child’s custody during school vacation, but both parents were restrained from taking the child outside India.
