1. The supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed in Court today and is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ram Kesh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

3. The instant dispute concerns the custody of the minor corpus, [Redacted], who is approximately 21 months old and is presently in the custody of his father, respondent no.6, [Redacted], a constable in the U.P. Police posted in District Jaunpur.

4. Earlier, by order dated 06.11.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the instant writ petition on the ground that the parties could seek custody of the minor under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Appeal No.1205 of 2025 ([Redacted] & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2026, and the matter has been restored to its original number for adjudication on merits.

5. The Division Bench after considering the various precedents of the Apex Court has concluded that in a habeas corpus petition for the custody of the minor only the welfare of the child is paramount and the Court has to examine this aspect. It was held that on the ground of alternative remedy, the habeas corpus petition cannot be dismissed.

6. Another factor, which influenced the decision of the Division Bench was an ex parte order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, whereby the custody of the minor was handed to the petitioner, but during the pendency of this appeal that order has been set aside in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2026 ([Redacted] vs. State of U.P. and others), passed by the Children Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.8, Ballia dated 21.04.2026. In view of this, at present there is no judicial order in favour of the petitioner, whereby, the legal custody of the minor has been handed to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Smt. [Redacted] @ [Redacted] marriage with respondent no.6 was solemnized on 04.12.2023; however, due to illegal demands for dowry, the petitioner was subjected to mental and physical harassment, and acts of cruelty were committed against her. It was further submitted that on 31.08.2024, the petitioner gave birth to the corpus [Redacted], who is now about 21 months old, who is in the illegal custody of respondent no.6. It was further submitted that the corpus has been illegally taken away by the respondent on 19.08.2025 regarding which, an FIR has been registered on 07.03.2026, under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 at Police Station Haldi, District Ballia against respondent, [Redacted]. It was submitted that the respondent has been suspended by the S.S.P., Jaunpur by order dated 12.03.2026 for his illegal act and acting in defiance of the orders of the Child Welfare Committee dated 10.09.2025, whereby he was directed to handover the custody of the minor to the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the minor, being only 21 months old, is wholly dependent on the petitioner, Smt. Rinku Ram @ Rinku Devi, for his nutritional and other essential needs. Further, in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, up to the age of five years, the mother is considered the best guardian of the minor. In view of the paramount welfare of the minor, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the custody of the minor corpus. He further submitted that the respondent is having an affair with another woman, which is evident from the WhatsApp chats submitted by the petitioner; as such, this fact alone disentitles the respondent from claiming custody of the minor corpus.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

1. Manju Tiwari vs. Rajendra Tiwari 1990 LawSuit(SC)24.

2. Gohar Begum vs. Suggi 1959 L