In child custody matters, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. The natural guardian is entitled to custody unless proven unfit, and a petition for habeas corpus serves as a valid, extraordinary remedy to secure custody from individuals lacking legal entitlement to the minor.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1.The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner, Vipin Kumar Pandey, who is the father of the minor corpus, Akshit Pandey, seeking his custody.

2. In compliance with the order of this Court dated 03.04.2026, the corpus has been produced before this Court today by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner and mother of the corpus, namely Deepika Pandey, died on 10.02.2025. It is further submitted that since then, the corpus is in the custody of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are the maternal aunt and uncle of the corpus. It is contended that the petitioner, being the natural and legal guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor. It is further submitted that the petitioner is financially sound and fully capable of maintaining the minor and ensuring his proper upbringing. Therefore, there exists no legal justification to deny custody of the minor to the petitioner.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s sister, Smt. Sunita Pandey, who resides in close proximity to the petitioner’s residence, is a housewife and is available to assist in taking care of the minor. She is stated to be physically fit and capable of ensuring the welfare of the child.

5. The petitioner, Vipin Kumar Pandey, is present in Court and has assured that he shall properly take care of the minor corpus. His financial capacity has not been disputed. Likewise, Smt. Sunita Pandey is also present and has undertaken to assist in the upbringing and welfare of the child.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the wife of the petitioner died during a failed IVF procedure, which, according to him, reflects adversely on the conduct of the petitioner and raises doubts regarding his capability to take care of the minor, who is presently about 13 months old. It is further submitted that the corpus is presently under the care of the maternal aunt, who is adequately equipped to look after the child, particularly considering that the child was born premature and requires special care. However, it is fairly admitted that no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Tejaswini Gaud and Others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Ors. (2019) 7 SCC 42 while granting the custody of 1.5 years child after the demise of mother to the father, who is the natural guardian, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held as under:-

"14. Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child. For restoration of the custody of a minor from a person who according to the personal law, is not his legal or natural guardian, in appropriate cases, the writ court has jurisdiction.

***

18. In Manju Malini [Manju Malini Seshachalam v. Vijay Thirugnanam, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 621 : (2018) 4 AIR Kant R 166] where the mother filed a habeas corpus petition seekin