The court prioritizes the child's welfare in custody matters, allowing interim custody to the mother.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This is not the first time that we are considering this matter.

2. On 09.01.2026, we heard the learned Government Pleader, who said that the alleged detenue is living with the 6th respondent in Chennai; and that they will appear before us on the next posting date.

3. We, thereupon, considered the matter on two more occasions, including on 13.01.2026, when the child was produced before us, accompanied by the 6th respondent. Our order of the said day is self- speaking and hence extracted.

The child ('alleged detenue') was produced before us by the Police and he was accompanied by the 6^th respondent- his father.

The child was very comfortable with both his parents as any child of his age would be.

We have no doubt that the child should spend some time with the petitioner - his mother before we take a final decision.

The 6^th respondent agreed that he will appear before this Court on 21.01.2026 again and that until such time, the child can be with the petitioner.

Post on 21.01.2026 and we order that the child will be in the interim custody of the petitioner till then.

4. Thereafter, on 21.01.2026, we passed a further order as under:

The parties are again before us, along with the child.

2. The learned counsel on both sides seek an on opportunity for them to talk and arrive at a settlement qua the custody of the child and other arrangements regarding visitation and interim custody.

3. We, therefore, refer the parties to mediation.

4. We direct that the arrangement made in the order dated 13.01.2026 will continue until the next posting date and that the parties will again be present in person on that date.

For report of mediation, post on 27.01.2026.

5. Though the parties thereafter reported that no compromise or settlement between them had fructified, we decided to give them one more opportunity and listed the matter to 27.01.2026. However, the party respondent did not appear, and we, therefore, adjourned the matter to 29.01.2026 with the following order:

Even today, there is no appearance for the 6^th respondent. He seems to be not interested in prosecuting this matter. However, we proposed to give him one more opportunity.

Post on 02.02.2026. We clarify that the petitioner and the child need not be present on that day.

6. For some reason, the party respondent is even today neither present nor represented by the counsel. The child is stated to be with the mother in terms of our directions and to be attending school, based on a new admission she has obtained for her.

7. In the above circumstances, confirming our observations in the afore-extracted order dated 29.01.2026, we allow this writ petition and record that the child is now with the mother.

8. We, however, deem it necessary to record that Smt. Athulya Martin – learned counsel for the petitioner, has undertaken that the father can see the child any time of his choice. But, since the said respondent is not present, we cannot pass orders, except to record the afore submission, which we do.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-