In custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and a mother is generally best suited to care for her young child.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Order on Application for Impleadment

1. The present application filed by the maternal grand-father seeking impleadment is hereby rejected. It is for the reason that he has no locus in view of the fact that the present petition has been filed seeking writ of habeas corpus by the mother of the detenue, aged about 4 years, and the custody at the time of filing of the present petition was with the grand-father (opposite party no.2), grand-mother (opposite party no.3), uncle (opposite party no.4) and aunt -wife of opposite party no.4, respectively, of the detenue.

Order on Petition

2. Rejoinder affiavit filed today is taken on record.

3. Heard Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for private opposite parties no.2 to 5, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. In terms of the earlier orders of this Court including the previous order dated 04.11.2024, the opposite party nos.2 to 5, namely, Sambhunath Dwivedi, Sona Devi, Deewakar Dwivedi and Sarita Devi along with detenue Vedika Dwivedi, aged about 4 years, are present before this Court. The mother of the detenue -Priya Devi also present before this Court. All the parties present before this Court have been identified by their respective counsel.

5. The present petition has been filed seeking custody of petitioner- Vedika Dwivedi by the next friend- Priya Devi.

6. The next friend -Priya Devi is the mother of the detenue, namely, Vedika Dwivedi, aged about 4 years. The marriage of Priya Devi was solemnized with the biological father of the detenue, namely, Vibhakar Dwivedi on 23.04.2019 and out of the wedlock of Priya Devi and Vibhakar Dwivedi, the detenue was born on 20.06.2020. Unfortunately, the biological father of the detenue, i.e. first husband of Priya Devi, namely, Vibhakar Dwivedi died on 13.05.2021. Thereafter on 28.02.2024 Priya Devi solemnized marriage with one Ravi Mishra and as per para 9 of the petition Ravi Mishra having sufficient means is to maintain the minor Vedika Dwivedi.

7. In regard to the welfare of the child, learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit filed today, which is taken on record, stated that the contents of the counter affidavit in so far as it relates to welfare of the minor, the same are completely vague and in fact nothing has been indicated on this aspect of the case which is most relevant in the matter related to custody of the minor.

8. It is further stated that on 07.08.2024 the mother of the detenue (next friend) came to know about the gift deed executed on 29.07.2024, annexed as Annexure No.RA-4 to the rejoinder affidavit, indicates that opposite party no.2-grand-father of the detenue has provided gata no.666 Min./1.603 hect., 705/0.177 hect., 706/0.335 hect, 533 Min./0.938 hect., total 4 Kila Rakba 3.053 hect., situated in village Intaura, Pargana Bihar, Tehsil Kunda, District-Pratapgarh to the opposite party no.4- Deewakar Dwivedi and accordingly now he is having no means to maintain himself and he would be maintained by opposite party no.4.

9. On being asked, it is stated before this Court that out of the wedlock of opposite party nos.4 and 5, there are two children, one male child and an another is female child.

10. In the aforesaid background of the case, the petition has been filed.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of private opposite party nos.2 to 5 stated that the detenue/child is at present living in the custody of grand-parents, who would look after the welfare of the minor detenue. It is also stated that it would be very difficult for the next friend of the detenue to take care of the detenue for the reason that she has solemnize the marriage with one Ravi Mishra. Issue of maintainability of this petition has also been raised. However, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 could not refute the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on