Allahabad High Court
SYED NAYAB HAIDER AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained to enforce the terms of the compromise and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, married to Syed Haider Ali, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that the husband, despite a compromise granting him custody of their minor child, was refusing the petitioner access to the child. The husband had earlier sought custody under the Guardians and Wards Act in the Family Court, which was interimly allowed with visitation rights to the father. The parties later executed a compromise that gave the father custody, allowed the petitioner visitation in Kolkata or Azamgarh, and stipulated alimony and maintenance payments. The petitioner now claims the husband is not complying with the compromise, particularly the visitation provision. The High Court held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used as an execution mechanism for a private compromise and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for enforcement, thereby disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a habeas corpus petition is the appropriate remedy to enforce a compromise agreement concerning custody and visitation in a family dispute.
- Whether the denial of visitation rights by the husband amounts to unlawful detention justifying a habeas corpus order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- family law
- custody
- guardians and wards act
- compromise agreement
- visitation rights
- enforcement of settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1284 of 2026
Syed Nayab Haider And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Afreen Shahab, Shahabuddin
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a matrimonial
dispute between the petitioner, Anam Fatema, and her estranged husband,
Syed Haider Ali. The husband had also instituted proceedings before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, under the Guardians and Wards
Act, seeking custody of the minor corpus. During the pendency of the said
proceedings, a compromise was entered into between the parties, pursuant to
which the custody of the minor corpus was handed over to the husband of
the petitioner. It is submitted that, at present, the respondent-husband is not
permitting the petitioner to meet the minor corpus.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
From the documents annexed with the petition, it is apparent that there was a
matrimonial dispute between the parties and that the husband had instituted
proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Azamgarh, seeking custody of the minor corpus, being Case
No. 45 of 2024, Syed Haider Ali Vs. Anam Fatema. The said case was
interimly allowed on 13.05.2025 and visitation rights were granted to the
father of the corpus.
During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, however, a compromise
was entered into between the spouses, a copy whereof has been brought on
record by the petitioner. The terms of the compromise disclose that the
custody of the minor corpus was handed over to the father, who was
HABC No. 1284 of 2026
2
permitted to reside with the corpus at Kolkata. At the same time, visitation
rights were granted to the petitioner to meet the minor corpus at Kolkata or
Azamgarh.
It was further agreed between the parties that the husband would pay a sum
of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner towards permanent alimony and would
also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to her.
The petitioner-wife has now complained that the respondent-husband is not
abiding by the terms of the aforesaid compromise. However, this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction in the present habeas corpus petition, cannot
assume the role of an executing court for enforcing the terms of the
compromise.
The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to raise her grievance before the
competent forum, which may examine the matter and ensure compliance
with the terms of the compromise, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant habeas corpus petition is
disposed of.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
September 8, 2026
Mayank
Digitally signed by :-
MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…