Abhinav Shardanand Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2026WP/577/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition by father for production and custody of minor daughter from Respondent No.3 (mother); Bombay High Court, Criminal Writ Petition No. 577 of 2026, decided 01.04.2026 by Kotwal & Patil, JJ.; child produced in Court and Petitioner given access; petition disposed of as not pressed with liberty to pursue custody proceedings before appropriate Court; such proceedings to be decided expeditiously; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed; Petitioner granted liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate Court for custody of the child, with any such proceedings to be decided expeditiously. ¶¶20

Abhinav Shardanand Upadhyay vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should issue directing Respondent No.3 to produce the Petitioner's minor daughter before the Court and restore the custody of the daughter to the Petitioner.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Permission was granted to learned counsel's request (on instructions) not to press the petition further; the petition stands disposed of as not pressed.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate Court for custody of the child.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The Court observed that if such custody proceedings are preferred by the Petitioner, they shall be decided expeditiously (sentence completed by "expeditiously." at the top of the next page).obiter¶¶24
The Court stated it was not necessary to decide the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition (sentence completed by "allegations." on the next page).obiter¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Criminal Writ Petition No. 577 of 2026, decided 1 April 2026 (Sarang V. Kotwal & Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.). The Petitioner (father) filed a habeas corpus petition seeking production of his minor daughter (born 01.12.2021, of his marriage with Respondent No.3 solemnised on 27.12.2018) and restoration of her custody, alleging that Respondent No.3 had left the matrimonial house with the child in January 2024, after which he could not see her. The Court noted it was not necessary to decide the truthfulness of those allegations. On the previous occasion the Court had directed Respondent No.3 to bring the child to Court; the child was duly produced and the Petitioner spent at least two hours with her in the Court premises. Thereupon, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, did not press the petition and sought liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings for custody. The Court granted permission, disposed of the petition as not pressed, and gave the Petitioner liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate Court for custody of the child, observing that any such proceedings shall be decided expeditiously.

21-wp-577-26

1 of 3

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 577 OF 2026

¶6

Abhinav Shardanand Upadhyay ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Durgesh Vaish a/w. Shanti Vaish for Petitioner. Mr. Ashish Satpute, APP for State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 1 APRIL 2026

¶10

PC :

¶11

This is a petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus

¶12

directing the Respondent No.3 to produce the Petitioner’s daughter before the Court and to restore the custody of the daughter to the Petitioner.

¶13

It is the case of the Petitioner that, he got married with the Respondent No.3 on 27.12.2018 and they have a daughter from their marriage, whose date of birth is 01.12.2021. There are certain allegations made in the petition. However, it is not necessary to decide the truthfulness or otherwise of those

¶14

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

¶15

Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2026.04.02 12:41:25 +0530

¶16

2 of 3 21-wp-577-26

¶17

allegations. It is the case of the Petitioner that, since January 2024, the Respondent No.3 left their matrimonial house with the minor daughter and since then he was unable to see his daughter. In this situation, he has approached this Court.

¶18

On the previous occasion, we had directed the Respondent No.3 to bring the daughter of the Petitioner to the Court. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 is present in the Court with the child. We ensured that the Petitioner could spend at least two hours with her child in the Court premises. Accordingly, the Petitioner could meet his daughter and he spent some time with his daughter.

¶19

In this situation, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, does not press this petition any further. However, he seeks liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court for custody of the Child.

¶20

Permission is granted. The petition is disposed of as not pressed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate Court

¶21

21-wp-577-26

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

for custody of the child.

¶24