Custody of a minor must prioritize the child's welfare, with visitation rights structured to maintain relationships with both parents amidst ongoing parental conflict.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Two warring spouses have filed the instant two intra-court appeals assailing the order dated 07.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby three applications filed, were disposed of by the said order, in a Habeas Corpus Petition No.9307 of 2020.

2. The two spouses have been at loggerheads and have filed multiple petitions which have had a chequered history and in order to appreciate the controversy, it will be appropriate to take a glance at the facts which have given rise to the instant intra-court appeals.

3. Intra-court Appeal No.221 of 2023 has been filed by the father and the grandparents of the detenue whereas Intra-court Appeal No.225 of 2023 has been filed by the mother of the detenue. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the appellants of Intra-court Appeal No.221 of 2023 as ‘father’, ‘grandparents’ as the case may be, the respondent No.2 i.e. the detenue shall be referred as the 'son' and the respondent No.3, who is also the appellant of the connected Intra-court Appeal No.225 of 2023, shall be referred to as the ‘mother’.

4. The facts have been taken from the Intra-court Appeal No.221 of 2023, however, wherever required, the relevant facts of the connected Intra-court Appeal No.225 of 2023 shall also be noticed.

5. Since, the issue involved in both the intra-court appeals is the same including the parties, hence, both the intra-court appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

6. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Deepti Goel were married on 30.06.2017. They were blessed with a son on 03.07.2018. Both the aforesaid spouses could not stay together for long as their married life was ensconced with bitterness and acrimonious legal proceedings. The son has been caught in the cross fire and is a victim of battle between the spouses.

7. Both the appellants are well educated and are professional degree holders in their own rights. The father is a Doctor by profession whereas the mother is an Assistant Professor. On account of matrimonial disputes, the mother left her matrimonial home at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand alongwith her minor son and started living in Lucknow with her parents. In the month of July, 2020, the father came down to Lucknow to meet with his son and he stayed at the residence of his in- laws at Lucknow. During his stay at Lucknow, it is alleged that the father on the pretext of taking his son for a short drive, instead, took his son out of the care and custody of his mother and drove down to Dhanbad and that too without informing or intimating the mother.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the mother lodged an FIR and also instituted a Habeas Corpus Petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court, registered as Writ Petition No.9307 of 2020 (HC) [ Master Devansh Agarwal Detenue through Mother and next friend Deepti Goel and another v. State of U.P. and others ].

9. The record further reflects that the learned Single Judge seized with the Habeas Corpus Petition had passed an order of production of the detenue, however, the order could not be communicated to the father. In the meantime, the father instituted two petitions at Dhan