Allahabad High Court

UME KULSOOM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: KRISHNA SWAROOP DHAR DWIVEDI SENIOR REGISTRAR CONF

Holding

In the absence of a conviction, the presumption of innocence prevails and the child's welfare is best served by granting custody to the father, subject to visitation rights for the maternal relatives.

Summary

The petitioners, Dilshad Khan and his parents, sought custody of the four‑year‑old minor, Ume Kulsoom, after the child was produced before the court following an order directing the State and private respondents to do so. The private respondents, who are the child's maternal grandparents and aunt, alleged that the petitioner had failed to protect his wife, Nazia Begum, who died by suicide, and that a criminal prosecution for her murder was pending against him. The petitioner submitted an affidavit stating his employment and willingness to care for the child, while the private respondents sought denial of custody on the basis of the pending criminal case. The court noted that the petitioner had not been convicted and that the presumption of innocence applies, and observed that the child was comfortable with her father and paternal grandparents. Balancing the child's welfare with the maternal relatives' emotional bond, the court granted custody to the father and ordered visitation rights, including daily video‑conferencing. The habeas corpus petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a father facing a criminal trial for alleged murder/suicide of his wife can be granted custody of his minor child.
Whether the presumption of innocence should influence custody determinations.
Whether visitation rights should be granted to maternal relatives despite the custody award.

Subjects

custody
minor child
habeas corpus
presumption of innocence
visitation rights
family law
criminal trial
child welfare

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1321 of 2026

Ume Kulsoom And Another
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)              :   Mahesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)              :   Ashwani Kumar Mishra, G.A.

Court No. - 73
                       HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the array of parties
during the course of the day.

By order dated 11th September, 2026, the State as well as private respondent
nos. 4 to 7 were directed to produce the minor corpus, Ume Kulsoom, before
this Court. In compliance with the said order, she has been produced by Sub-
Inspector Ganesh Kumar, PNO 152200684, and Lady Constable Geeta
Kushwaha, PNO 252440920, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi.

This Court interacted with the minor corpus, Ume Kulsoom, who is the
minor daughter of the petitioner, Dilshad Khan. However, on account of her
tender age, she could not meaningfully interact with this Court. The corpus
was stated to be about four years of age. This Court directed the petitioner as
well as his parents to take the corpus in their lap, and it was apparent that the
corpus was comfortable in their company and shared an emotional bond with
them.

This Court also interacted with the petitioner, Dilshad Khan, who disclosed
that his wife, Nazia Begum, committed suicide at her matrimonial home
when he was at Mumbai in connection with his employment. He further
stated that a criminal prosecution has been lodged against him by his in-
laws, in which he has been enlarged on bail by order dated 07.07.2026
passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7486 of 2026,
Dilshad Vs. State of U.P.

In compliance with the order dated 11th September, 2026, the petitioner has
                                                           HABC No. 1321 of 2026
                                 2


also filed his personal affidavit, wherein he has disclosed that he is presently
working in Mumbai in a private job and is earning approximately
Rs.35,000/- per month. The petitioner assured this Court that, in the event
custody of the minor corpus is handed over to him, he would take proper
care of her and ensure her proper upbringing and welfare.

The petitioner was accompanied by his parents, who also assured this Court
that, in the absence of the petitioner, they would take proper care of the
minor corpus. The minor corpus was also found to be comfortable in their
company. This Court has no reason to presume that the petitioner and his
parents would not take proper care of the minor corpus. There is also no
material on record to arrive at any such conclusion.

This Court also interacted with private respondent nos. 4 to 7, who are the
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner, as well as the cousin
mother-in-law of the petitioner. They reiterated their allegation that the
petitioner had not taken proper care of his wife, Nazia Begum, who was
murdered at her matrimonial home, and that a criminal prosecution has been
lodged against the petitioner in respect thereof. They, therefore, submitted
that the petitioner is not entitled to the custody of the minor corpus.

It is apparent that the petitioner has not yet been convicted in the criminal
trial. Thus, at this stage, the presumption of innocence operates in his favour,
and merely because he is facing trial, it cannot be presumed that he had
murdered his wife or abetted her to commit suicide.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering that the
minor corpus is comfortable in the company of her father and paternal
grandparents, this Court is of the considered opinion that handing over her
custody to the petitioner would be conducive to her welfare.

Accordingly, the custody of the minor corpus, Ume Kulsoom, is handed over
to the petitioner, Dilshad Khan. However, in order to maintain the emotional
bond of the minor corpus with the private respondents, they are granted
visitation rights. The private respondents shall be at liberty to visit the
residence of the petitioner, Dilshad Khan, as and when they desire to meet
the minor corpus.
                                                                                              HABC No. 1321 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    In addition thereto, the private respondents shall also be permitted to interact
                                    with the minor corpus through video conferencing on mobile phone every
                                    day between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

                                    With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant habeas corpus
                                    petition is disposed of.



                                                                                                (Sandeep Jain,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Mayank




Digitally signed by :-
MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…