1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Naman Agarwal for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Shri Riyajuddin Ansari learned Counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3.

2. The present special appeal raises challenge to the order dated 30.09.2026, whereby learned Single Judge has disposed of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2025 filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 handing over custody of minor corpus, namely, Master Divyam Kumar (respondent no. 2) to his father-respondent no. 3 (‘the respondent’) and also granting visitation rights to the appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, out of the wedlock between the respondent and one Bimla Kumari, a son (‘corpus’) was born on 12.10.2020. The corpus was residing with his parents, however, as per the pleadings contained in the writ petition, when, in the mid of year 2022, mother of the corpus was diagnosed with kidney problem, her parents-in- law, namely, Smt. Ramdhin Mahto and Smt. Champa Devi, residents of Ghaziabad, took their daughter and her minor son with them on the pretext that they would take proper care of both of them. After the child was taken away by his maternal grand parents, the respondent started living alone and, unfortunately, his wife Bimla Kumari died on 31.05.2023 due to kidney failure. At that time, the corpus was aged about2.5 years.

4. The writ petition was filed sometime in November, 2025 stating that since July, 2023, the child was in illegal custody of the appellants, who are, respectively, Mausi and Mausa of the corpus and a petition under Section 25 read with Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (‘G & W Act’) filed by the appellants seeking custody of the corpus was pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad. Terming the said proceedings as not maintainable and raising a plea that the father of the corpus being his natural guardian working as HR Manager in a company, namely, Randstad Company and earning month salary of Rs. 40,176/-, he was able to take care of his child and, thus, the petition was filed claiming custody of the corpus.

5. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 30.07.2026, visitation rights were granted to the father as indicated in second paragraph of the final order passed by the learned Single Judge and, after exchange of affidavits inter se parties, the writ petition was disposed of, as indicated herein-before. Being aggrieved of handing over custody to the father, Mausi and Mausa of the corpus have filed the present special appeal.

6. Counter and rejoinder affidavits in the present special appeal have been exchanged between the parties and, therefore, the same is being decided finally.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has made submissions that there was no trigger to file habeas corpus petition after a period of more than two years since when the corpus was living with the appellants in their safe custody and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable, particularly when it was not indicated in the petition as to how the custody was unlawful or illegal. It is further submitted that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad has already passed an order dated 22.04.2026 in proceedings under the G & W Act granting visitation rights to the respondent; the said proceedings being pending and the respondent having not even cared to visit the house of the appellants exercising his visitation rights, the same reflects that he has no affection with the child and, for this reason, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting custody to the respondent.

8. It is further submitted that merely because the respondent happens to be father of the corpus, who is now aged about 6 years, the same was not sufficient to grant him custody as welfare of the corpus being of paramount consideration, the record reflects better financial status of the appellants in comparison to th