The Allahabad High Court has allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his 13-month-old son from the child’s maternal aunt and uncle. The Court held that the father, as the natural guardian, is the most suitable person for the child’s upbringing in the absence of any adverse material regarding his fitness.
Background
The petitioner, Vipin Kumar Pandey, moved the High Court seeking the custody of his minor son, Akshit Pandey. The child’s mother, Deepika Pandey, passed away on February 10, 2025. Following her death, the minor remained in the custody of his maternal aunt and uncle (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5). The corpus was produced before the Court by the Mau police in compliance with a previous order.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that as the natural and legal guardian, the father is entitled to custody. It was submitted that the petitioner is financially sound and capable of ensuring a proper upbringing. Additionally, the petitioner’s sister, Smt. Sunita Pandey, who resides nearby, undertook to assist in the care of the minor.
Conversely, the private respondents contended that the mother’s death occurred during a “failed IVF procedure,” which they claimed reflected adversely on the petitioner’s conduct. They argued that the child, born premature and requiring special care, was being well-looked after by the maternal aunt. However, the respondents admitted that no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner.
Legal Analysis and Observations
Justice Sandeep Jain referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019), which established that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters when the detention by a person not entitled to legal custody is deemed illegal.
The Court observed:
“The mere fact that the death occurred during a failed IVF procedure cannot, in any manner, be attributed to any fault on the part of the petitioner so as to disentitle him from claiming custody of his minor child.”
The Bench further noted that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father is the natural guardian. The Court emphasized that the “paramount consideration” is the welfare of the child, noting that the petitioner has stable residential arrangements and sufficient financial means.
Regarding the maternal relatives’ claim, the Court remarked:
“The age of the maternal grandmother, stated to be about 71 years, also cannot be ignored while assessing long-term welfare considerations.”
The Court also highlighted the risk of the child growing up without an emotional bond with the father if custody was denied at this tender age:
“If custody is not entrusted to the father at this stage, there is a real possibility of the child growing up without forming any emotional bond with him, which would be detrimental to the child’s overall development and the father’s parental rights.”
Decision
The Court found no justification to deny the father custody and directed Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to hand over the minor to the petitioner forthwith in the courtroom. To preserve the emotional bond with the maternal family, the Court granted visitation rights to the maternal aunt and uncle every Sunday for two hours at the petitioner’s residence.
The petition was allowed, and the custody was transferred in compliance with the Court’s direction.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Akshit Pandey (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
- Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 365 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain
- Date: April 21, 2026
