Raj (Corpus) and Another vs State of U.P… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2025)

Raj (Corpus) and Another vs State of U.P… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim arrangement: minor corpus to continue residing with his maternal grandparents; petitioner no.2 (father) granted telephone/audio-video communication rights (preferably twice weekly at mutually agreed times) and in-person visitation on reasonable advance notice, in the presence of a responsible adult relative or at a neutral, child-friendly venue; habeas corpus petition disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the minor corpus should continue to reside with his maternal grandparents, having regard to the paramount welfare and best interest of the child. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the totality of circumstances, and keeping in consideration the paramount welfare and best interest of the minor child as enshrined in Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and reinforced by Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, [(2009) 1 SCC 42], the minor's continued residence with his maternal grandparents is presently in his best interest.

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner no.2 is entitled to communicate with the minor corpus via telephone or audio/video call at reasonable intervals, preferably twice a week, at times mutually agreed upon by the parties.

Key takeaways

Respondent no.4 shall facilitate such communication in a cooperative and child-friendly manner and shall provide petitioner no.2 with a functional mobile number for establishing contact, as and when necessary.ratio¶¶13
If petitioner no.2 desires in-person meetings, he shall inform respondent no.4 reasonably in advance; visitation shall take place in the presence of a responsible adult relative or at a neutral and child-friendly venue, subject to the emotional comfort and psychological well-being of the minor, with both parties making conscious and good-faith efforts to organise such meetings.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vinod Diwakar, J.; order dated 24.4.2025) disposed of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 210 of 2025 instituted by petitioner no.2, the biological father of a minor corpus (Raj, aged approximately six years), who sought protective custody and enforcement of visitation and communication rights; the child was in the care of his maternal grandparents (respondent no.4), who produced the corpus before the Court. Petitioner no.2 faces trial under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (PS Bidhuna, District Auraiya) concerning the alleged custodial dowry death of the child's mother. In an in camera interaction the child expressed a clear, consistent and voluntary preference to remain with his maternal grandparents, and counsel for the father did not press the custody prayer, confining relief to visitation and communication rights. Guided by Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and relying on Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, [(2009) 1 SCC 42], the Court held the minor's continued residence with his maternal grandparents to be presently in his best interest, and directed: (a) telephone/audio-video communication between father and child preferably twice a week at mutually agreed times; (b) respondent no.4 to facilitate such communication and provide a functional mobile number; and (c) in-person meetings on reasonable advance notice, in the presence of a responsible adult relative or at a neutral, child-friendly venue, subject to the child's emotional comfort and psychological well-being. The arrangement is expressly interim and without prejudice to substantive custody, guardianship or modification proceedings before the competent court.