Back
2026 Supreme(All) 264
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN BHANSALI, CJ, KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Smt. Rinku Ram @ Rinku Devi And Another - Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1205 of 2025
Decided On : 03-04-2026
For the Appellant : Kamla Kant Mishra, Varun Mishra
For the Respondent: Rakesh Pande (Sr. Adv.) with Ram Kesh, Rajiv Singh (S.C.), Virendra Pratap Pal
A writ of habeas corpus can be invoked for child custody disputes even when legal remedies exist, as the child's welfare is paramount.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Legal custody and guardianship rights - Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus aims to safeguard individual liberty and restore custody to lawful guardians, especially minors - Dismissal based on jurisdiction in custody matters considered contrary to Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 4, 6, 16, 19)
(B) The court ruled that the writ petition was improperly dismissed as maintainability was incorrectly assessed, emphasizing that the welfare of the child is the primary concern, and expressed that the lower court should have considered the merits. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed that her minor son was unlawfully taken by the respondent, revealing a contentious marital dispute. The Child Welfare Committee's prior order for custody was ignored, leading to the filing of the habeas corpus petition. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order, and restoring the habeas corpus petition for reconsideration on its merits. (Paras 19, 21)
Issues: The key issue was whether the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition was justified or whether the child’s welfare necessitated court intervention. (Para 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the custody rights amidst parental disputes should prioritize the best interests of the child, thereby permitting the reconsideration of the habeas corpus petition. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: The appeal was allowed and the original petition restored for further consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habeas corpus case facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on non-compliance (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding custody and rights (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's reasoning on writ maintainability (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. final order and restoration of writ (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Kamla Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ram Kesh for respondent no. 6.
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 06.11.2025, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 931 of 2025 filed by the appellants.
3. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Rinku Ram (appellant no. 1), mother of Vishwajeet (minor) (appellant no. 2), stating that the appellant no. 2 was born on 13.08. 2024 out of the wedlock between appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 6 and matrimonial dispute arose between the parties to the marriage wherein some proceedings were allegedly sought to be initiated/undertaken at the instance of respondent no. 6. It was further stated that the child had been forcibly taken away by the respondent no. 6 and despite an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Child Welfare Committee (‘C.W.C.’), whereby the respondent no. 6 was directed to handover custody of the child to the appellant no. 1, child was not handed over to her.
4. The learned Single Judge, on the first date of consideration of the writ petition, dismissed the same with the following observations:
“5. A writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ aimed at safeguarding an individual's liberty by providing an immediate and effective remedy for release from unlawful or improper detention. The writ can also be invoked to restore the custody of a minor to their lawful guardian if they have been wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person not entitled to legal custody is considered equivalent to illegal detention, warranting the issuance of a writ for the minor's custody.
6. The law governing guardianship and custody matters is primarily encapsulated in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, under which a guardian may be appointed or entitled to custody upon a proper application filed by a person asserting such a claim. 7. Upon careful review of the facts in the present case, no evidence has been presented to establish that the custody of petitioner no.2 is illegal or improper. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus, which is invoked for the release from illegal custody, is not applicable in the present case.
8. As regards the issue of custodial rights, it is open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for the determination of such rights in accordance with the law.”
5. This Court, by order dated 11.12.2025, issued notice to respondents no. 6 to 8, pursuant whereto, appearance was put by them through counsel. On 02.02.2026, the Court granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions as to why the directions of the C.W.C. had not been complied with. Pursuant thereto, instructions were furnished by the learned Standing Counsel and following order was passed on 25.02.2026:-
“1. On 02.02.2026, learned Standing Counsel was granted time to obtain instructions as to why directions of the Child Welfare Committee (Annexure-3) have not been complied with, pursuant to which, instructions have been produced inter alia indicating that the SHO, Haldi, Ballia gave a report to the Superintendent of Police, Ballia regarding non-compliance based on which, the Superintendent of Police, Ballia has written a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur where respondent no. 7 is posted requiring him to take appropriate steps.
2. It is surprising that despite the orders passed by this Court, the officers are busy in writing letters to one another and the child, contrary to the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, is at Police Lines, Jaunpur.
3. Learned Standi
