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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 707 of 2025

¶3

Baby Chanchal (Corpus) And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Manohar Prashad And 8 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Balbir Singh, Sukhendu Pal Singh : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 85

¶7

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

¶8

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, as well as vakalatnama filed by Shri A.B. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent no.3, are taken on record.

¶9

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents, learned counsel for respondent no.3, and perused the material available on record.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the minor corpus, aged about 23 months, has been residing with her maternal grandmother (Nani) after the unfortunate demise of her mother. It is further contended that there is no subsisting matrimonial dispute between the parties. The mother of the corpus had merely gone to her parental home for a short stay, where she unfortunately fell ill and later passed away. Learned counsel also submits that financial assistance was duly extended to her during her medical treatment.

¶11

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the mother of the corpus had left the matrimonial home under compelling circumstances, as adequate medical care and treatment for tuberculosis were not being provided by the petitioner's family. It is further submitted that she subsequently underwent treatment at her parental home, where she ultimately succumbed to the illness. Since then, the minor child has been in the care and custody of her maternal grandmother, who has been looking after her welfare.

¶12

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that

¶13

HABC No. 707 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the issue of custody and welfare of a minor child involves intricate questions of fact and a holistic evaluation of the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child. Such an exercise cannot be appropriately undertaken in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Jurisdiction in this regard is specifically conferred upon the District Court under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to adjudicate matters relating to custody and guardianship.

¶16

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

¶17

7. However, it is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate relief under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by instituting proceedings before the competent court.

¶18

September 23, 2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶19

(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

¶20

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

Baby Chanchal (Corpus) and Another v. Manohar Prashad and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Chanchal (Corpus) and Another v. Manohar Prashad and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases