The Allahabad High Court has temporarily handed over the custody of a five-year-old child to her father after finding that she had been heavily tutored by her mother to level false allegations of sexual abuse and assault against him. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Jain passed the interim order, observing that a child of such tender age should not be used as a pawn in matrimonial disputes, and that her continued stay with her mother is not conducive to her mental health and future.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court through a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the father seeking custody of his minor daughter from the mother, who was listed as respondent no. 4. This is the second time the father has approached the court.
Previously, the father had filed a separate Habeas Corpus Writ Petition in 2025, which was disposed of on August 11, 2025. In that petition, the court had granted the father weekly access and visitation rights, permitting him to interact with his daughter through video conferencing every Sunday from 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Devaang Savla assisted by Utkarsh Srivastava and Shubh Mittal, argued that the previous order granting visitation rights was rendered meaningless because the mother and other private respondents created constant obstructions and hindrances to block the interaction. Furthermore, the father’s counsel contended that the minor child was being heavily tutored by her mother to learn abusive and sexual content far beyond her age and logical comprehension. They argued that if the child remained in the custody of the private respondents, her future would be ruined, making temporary custody with the father necessary for her well-being.
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the mother and other private respondents, Anju Shukla (Government Advocate) and Shailesh Pandey, opposed the petition. They submitted that there are severe matrimonial disputes between the father and the mother, meaning they cannot reside together. They characterized all allegations made by the father as completely false and baseless. Highlighting the tender age of the child, they argued that the custody should rightfully remain with the mother.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
To determine the child’s state of mind, the court interacted directly with the five-year-old minor. During the interaction, the child stated that she did not want to reside with her father, alleging that he had physically assaulted her and her mother and had sexually abused her.
However, the Court strongly rejected these assertions, finding them to be the result of heavy tutoring by the mother. The Court noted that the complexity of the allegations was entirely inconsistent with the child’s cognitive development.
The Court observed:
“It is apparent that the corpus has been heavily tutored by her mother, as such, no reliance can be placed on her submission that she was sexually abused by her father.”
Expressing concern over how the child was being positioned in the marital conflict, the Court further stated:
“It is very much apparent that given tender age of the corpus, she should not be used as a pawn in the fight between the husband and wife but the respondent has used her as a pawn.”
The Court concluded that leaving the minor girl with her mother would severely impact her mental health, noting:
“it is not good for her welfare if she remains with the respondent no.4 Chandani Jaiswal because if she continues to remain in her custody certainly she will be spoiled.”
Decision of the Court
Consequently, the High Court ordered the temporary transfer of the child’s custody to her father until the next date of listing.
To ensure the mother maintains contact, the court ruled that the mother may visit the father’s residence to meet the child. Additionally, she is permitted to speak with her daughter via video conferencing, a facility the father assured the court he would actively provide.
The Court has listed the matter for August 17, 2026, as fresh, treating the case as tied up and part-heard to this Bench. On the next listing date, the father must appear personally in court along with the minor child. The court also directed the State and police authorities (respondent nos. 2 and 3) to ensure the safety and security of the father and the child during their travel.
Case Details
Case Title: Riddhie Jaiswal Minor vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case No.: HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 759 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain
Date: July 9, 2026
