Disposed¶24

Mohammad Hammad Thru. Guardian Mother Nida Dawar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026HABC/2/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2 of 2026; Rajeev Singh, J.; decided 28.01.2026; habeas corpus for minor children aged about 8 and 5; detenues Md. Hammad and Hareem Fatima; mother/guardian Nida Dawar; custody with opposite party nos. 2-4; affidavit and undertaking by respondent no.2 allowing meeting with mother without hindrance; concession by respondent nos. 2-4; petition disposed of; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in view of the affidavit of respondent no.2 and the concession of respondent nos. 2 to 4 permitting the mother, Nida Dawar, to meet the minor detenues Mohd. Hammad and Hareem Fatima without hindrance; no further direction for custody or handover was issued. ¶24

Mohammad Hammad Thru. Guardian Mother Nida Dawar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2 of 2026

¶3

Mohammad Hammad Thru. Guardian Mother Nida Dawar And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

		.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Lokendra Kumar Humayun Qadar	Gupta,	Mirza
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Lalji Gupta, Yadav, Priyanshu Agn	Manoj ihotiri	Kumar

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

1. Heard.

¶11

This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶12

"To issue an order or direction for release of the petitioners from the custody of the opposite party No. 2 to 4 and hand them over to the mother of the petitioner, Nida Dawar, for proper care and education."

¶13

In pursuance of earlier order dated 12.01.2026, the deponent and the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 alongwith the detenues, and Sub Inspector- Sri Shivanand as well as Lady Constable- Ms. Suman Devi, P.S.- Bazar Khala, Lucknow are present today before this Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the private respondents has filed affidavit duly sworn by the respondent no.2, stating therein that it is open to the deponent that she may meet with the detenues, namely, Md. Hammad and Hareem Fatima (petitioners) aged about 8 and 5 years respectively.

¶15

The aforesaid affidavit is taken on record.

¶16

The paragraph nos.1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid affidavit are as under:-

¶17

"1. That the deponent himself is opposite party no. 2 and authorised by other opposite party no. 3 and 4 to doing pairvi as such he is fully conversant with the facts and

¶18

HABC No. 2 of 2026

¶19

¶20

circumstances of the case for proving the identity, deponent is filing its identity card.

¶21

2. That the deponent thereby respectfully submits that he will let his both children Mohd. Hammad and Hareem Fatima meet their mother Nida Dawar.

¶22

3. That the deponent will not create any hindrance in the meeting of his son Mohd. Hammad and his daughter Hareem Fatima with their mother Nida Dawar."

¶23

The respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 also concede this fact that they will not create any hindrance in peaceful meeting of the deponent with her children in terms of the contents mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

¶25

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶26

January 28, 2026

¶27

Arpan

¶28

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

Mohammad Hammad Thru. Guardian Mother Nida Dawar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hammad Thru. Guardian Mother Nida Dawar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Archana Saini vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Avadh Bihari Mishra vs U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another

Chandra Udai Pratap Narain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Vidhan Bhavan Lko. and 2 Others

Suman Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Kadirul vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Madhu Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others