Dismissed¶¶16

Gupta Vanshika Ankit and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2025HABC/640/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court habeas corpus writ petition custody of minor children grandfather versus grandmother illegal detention matrimonial discord Guardians and Wards Act 1890 welfare of the child Article 226 Constitution of India extraordinary jurisdiction declined dismissed as devoid of merit liberty to approach competent civil court; HABC No. 640 of 2025; Vinod Diwakar, J.; decided October 16, 2025; counsel: Vindeshwari Prasad for petitioners, Abhishek Kumar Srivastava G.A. for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court in accordance with law. ¶¶16

Gupta Vanshika Ankit and Another vs State… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court in accordance with law.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, direct respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to produce the minor children (corpus) and hand over their custody to the grandfather-petitioner on the allegation that the minors are illegally detained. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

The dispute essentially arises from matrimonial discord and concerns the custody of the minor children; such issues fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where custody matters are adjudicated primarily based on the welfare of the child.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

While dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court in accordance with law.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition (HABC) No. 640 of 2025, Allahabad High Court (Vinod Diwakar, J.), decided October 16, 2025 — Petitioners sought a direction to respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to produce the corpus, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (minor children), and hand over their custody to the grandfather-petitioner, alleging illegal detention. On interaction, the corpus expressed refusal to reside with their grandmother. Holding that the dispute essentially arose from matrimonial discord and concerned custody of minor children, the Court held that such issues fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where custody is adjudicated primarily on the welfare of the child, and declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at that stage. Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 640 of 2025

¶2

Gupta Vanshika Ankit And Another

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. And 7 Others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vindeshwari Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 88

¶9

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8 to produce the corpus—petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (minor children)—before this Court and to hand over their custody to the grandfather, petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have illegally detained the minors and that such custody is not in accordance with law.

¶13

After interaction with the corpus, who appeared before this Court today, it is noted that they have expressed their refusal to reside with their grandmother, who is also present in Court.

¶14

Upon consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, it appears that the dispute essentially arises from matrimonial discord and concerns the custody of the minor children. This Court is of the considered view that the issues raised fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where custody matters are adjudicated primarily based on the welfare of the child.

¶15

In view of the above, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶17

HABC No. 640 of 2025

¶18

¶19

However, it is clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court in accordance with law.

¶20

October 16, 2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶21

(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gupta Vanshika Ankit and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gupta Vanshika Ankit and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aswani Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jugal Kishor Dogra vs State of U.P. and Another

Aswani Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amvarwati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja Chaube and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baby Chanchal (Corpus) and Another vs Manohar Prashad and 8 Others