Ragini Mishra and Another vs Nitin Nigam — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2026)

Ragini Mishra and Another vs Nitin Nigam — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief decided; review application fixed for final hearing and disposal on 19th February, 2026 and to be listed as fresh, with liberty to the applicant to seek adjournment of the date fixed that day in the Executing Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench ought itself to have interacted with the boy to find out his preference in the matter of his parents having separated, notwithstanding the Family Court having done the exercise, the appeal being a continuation of the suit (relying on Section 17(3), Guardians and Wards Act, 1890). +2 more

Key takeaways

The Court noted that the day of hearing was the date fixed in the Executing Court and that the applicant may seek adjournment there; the review was fixed for final hearing and disposal on 19th February, 2026, to be listed as fresh.¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc Review Application (Defective) No. 56 of 2026 (Ragini Mishra and another v. Nitin Nigam), seeking review of the Division Bench's judgment dated 14th October, 2025 in a child-custody appeal. Review applicant no. 1's senior counsel (Mr. Shashi Nandan) submitted that the Bench ought itself to have interacted with the boy to ascertain his preference in the matter of his parents having separated, the appeal being a continuation of the suit, relying on sub-section (3) of Section 17, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; and that summary dismissal of the special leave petition against the judgment (Supreme Court order dated 24th November, 2025) does not bar review, relying on Manisha Nimesh Mehta vs. ICICI Bank, (2024) 9 SCC 573. Respondent-father's counsel (Mr. Subodh Kumar) demonstrated that the supporting affidavit, though affirmed on 1st February, 2026, recites an Executing Court order dated 04.02.2026 directing custody of Applicant No. 2 to be handed over to the Respondent Father by 13.02.2026 in execution of the decree dated 31.07.2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ghaziabad in Misc. Civil Case No. 115 of 2022; he further submitted the SLP was dismissed after hearing counsel. The Court recorded that the applicant may seek adjournment of the date fixed that day in the Executing Court, fixed the review for final hearing and disposal on 19th February, 2026, and directed it to be listed as fresh. No issue was decided; the order is procedural.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 56 of 2026

Ragini Mishra And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Nitin Nigam .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kali Azad, Rohan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Subodh Kumar

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of review applicant no. 1, who was appellant no. 1 in the appeal dealt with by us on judgment dated 14th October, 2025. He submits, his client sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment but by order dated 24th November, 2025, the petition was summarily dismissed. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Manisha Nimesh Mehta vs. ICICI Bank reported in (2024) 9 SCC 573 for his contention that summary dismissal of special leave petition does not bar review.

Mr. Nandan submits his short point is, we did not ourselves interact with the boy to find out his preference in the matter of his parents having separated. He refers to sub-section (3) in section 17, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to submit, the appeal being continuation of suit, notwithstanding the Family Court having had done the exercise, we ought to have done it as well.

Mr. Subodh Kumar, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent (father). He draws attention to the affidavit affirmed in support of the review application. He demonstrates, statement in it that affirmation was of 1st February, 2026 but paragraph-6 in the affidavit carries statement regarding order passed by the Executing Court on 4th February, 2026. The paragraph is reproduced below.

CMRAD No. 56 of 2026

2

"6. That since the Respondent Father has filed the execution of the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ghaziabad in Misc. Civil Case No. 115 of 2022, Nitin Nigam vs. Ragini Mishra and Anr., which has ordered on 04.02.2026, that the custody of the Applicant No. 2, be handed over to the Respondent Father by 13.02.2026, the Applicant has preferred the instant Review Application with utmost promptitude."

He then draws attention to said order dated 24th November, 2025 of the Supreme Court to submit, the order was made after hearing learned counsel and therefore, it cannot be said that the special leave petition was dismissed summarily.

On query submission at the Bar is, today is the date fixed in the Executing Court. Applicant may seek adjournment as we fix the review for final hearing and disposal on 19th February, 2026.

List on 19th February, 2026 as fresh.

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

February 13, 2026

Shiraz

Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad