Dismissed

Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship of Mother Smt. Manisha Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2025HABC/120/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition by a mother through her minor sons alleging unlawful custody by their father. The court interacted with both children in person, who denied confinement and stated they resided with the father. Finding only a family dispute with remedy before the family court, the petition was dismissed as misconceived.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28125

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 120 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship Of Mother Smt. Manisha Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri Bhaskar Mishra, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 and counter affidavit, which are taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that due to typographical error respondent no.6 has been typed as respondent no.7 in the petition and he prays to correct the same, to which there is no objection by learned AGA.

¶8

In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the respondent no.7 as respondent no. 6 in the memo of petition during course of the day.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 6 submits that the alleged detenues are aged about 16 and 8 years and they are residing in the same house, in which their mother and father are residing. However, on account of repeated quarrel by the mother of the alleged detenues with the respondent no.4, she repeatedly used to call the police so for sometimes they lived with respondent nos.5 and 6 for studies as the alleged detenue no.1 was in High School and his Board Examinations were going on.

¶10

Otherwise, they are residing in the same house and it can be enquired by the alleged detenues also, who are present.

¶11

Respondent no.4 alongwith alleged detenue no.1Chaitanya Sharma,aged about 16 years, Aryan Sharma, aged about 8 years and the next friend i.e. their mother are present in person.

¶12

On query being made by this Court, the alleged detenue no.1- Chaitanya Sharma told his name as Chaitanya Sharma, age as 16 years and date of birth as 12.11.2008 and that he is studying in class XI. He further told that he has not been kept in confinement by his father or by the respondents no. 5 and 6. He told that his mother does not treat him as her son. He also told that the quarrel between his mother and father is going on since a long time. He also told that he is residing in the same house, in which his mother is also residing alongwith his father. However, during Highschool examinations he had shifted to the house of his uncle grand father i.e. respondent no.5 on account of aforesaid quarrel for studies and now, he is residing in the same house.

¶13

On a query being made by this Court, the alleged detenue no.2-Sri Aryan Sharma also told his name as Aryan Sharma, age as 8 years and date of birth as 04.09.2016 and that he is studying in class II. He also admits that he is residing in the same house. However, his mother used to beat him.

¶14

On interaction with the next friend and respondent no.4, it appears that there is some family dispute between them.

¶15

In view of the above, it cannot be said that alleged detentue no.1-Chaitanya Sharma and detenue no.2Aryan Sharma are in unlawful custody. However, there appears some family dispute between next friend i.e. mother of alleged detenues and respondent no.4 i.e. father of the alleged detenues, for which remedy lies somewhere else, may be before the family court. This petition is misconceived and lacks merit.

¶16

This petition is dismissed .

¶17

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 dk/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship of Mother Smt. Manisha Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship of Mother Smt. Manisha Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarita Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Master Vishwam Dwivedi Thru. His Maternal Granfather/Next Friend Sharda Prasad Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Sandhya Yadav Thru. Her Next Friend/Husband Pradumm Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jagat Narain and 2 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship of Mother Smt. Manisha Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Sanjay Kumar Nirmal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another