SMT SAROJ AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1356 of 2026

Smt Saroj And Another
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Kuldeep Mishra, Maksood Ahmad,
                                   Mohd. Afzal Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A.

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

1. By order dated 16th September, 2026, the State was directed to produce
the minor corpus, Mishti, before this Court. In compliance with the said
order, the corpus has been produced by Sub-Inspector Manendra Kumar
(P.N.O. 234221035), Head Constable Jatin Kumar (P.N.O. 252292938) and
Lady Constable Neha Rajput (P.N.O. 252295373), Police Station
Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad.


2. This Court could not have a meaningful interaction with the minor corpus,
Mishti, who is aged about two and a half years, owing to her tender age.
However, from her demeanour and conduct, it was apparent that she was
comfortable in the company of respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, whom she
appears to regard as her mother, and respondent No. 7, Deepak, the husband
of respondent No. 5.


3. The Court interacted with the petitioner, Smt. Saroj. She disclosed that she
and her husband, Parvesh @ Bhola, had given the minor corpus in adoption
to respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, and respondent No. 6, Sachinder Singh,
and an adoption deed was also executed in that regard. She further disclosed
that, subsequently, Ayesha Singh left Sachinder Singh and solemnized
marriage with respondent No. 7, Deepak. She submitted that she had not
given the minor corpus in adoption to Ayesha Singh and Deepak and,
therefore, she now seeks custody of the minor corpus.


4. The Court thereafter interacted with respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, who
disclosed that the minor corpus had been given in adoption to her and her
then husband, Sachinder Singh, as the petitioner was unable to maintain the
                                                          HABC No. 1356 of 2026
                                 2

corpus on account of her poor financial condition. She further disclosed that,
at that time, the petitioner had three children, namely, Sagar, aged about 18
years, Mahak, aged about 15 years, and the minor corpus, Mishti. Since the
petitioner was unable to maintain her children due to poverty, the custody of
Mishti was given to her and her then husband, Sachinder Singh.


5. Respondent No. 5 further disclosed that she was subsequently deserted by
Sachinder Singh and thereafter solemnized marriage with respondent No. 7,
Deepak, with whom she is presently residing. She has also produced before
the Court the adoption deed dated 13.09.2024, stated to have been executed
between herself and the petitioner. She claimed that she has been taking care
of the minor corpus for the last about two years and that the corpus has been
residing with her throughout this period. She, therefore, submitted that she
may be permitted to retain the custody of the minor corpus.


6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adoption deed
produced by respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, is merely a notarized
document and has not been registered. It is, therefore, submitted that the said
document is not admissible in evidence and that no legal right in respect of
the custody of the minor corpus can be claimed by respondent No. 5 on the
basis of such an unregistered adoption deed. In support of his submission,
learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Lucknow Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 316 of 2025, Arun and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2025 (10) ADJ 543. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner, being the biological mother of the minor
corpus, is entitled to her custody.


7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 7 submits
that the validity of the adoption deed is not required to be finally adjudicated
upon in the present proceedings and that the paramount consideration before
this Court, while considering the custody of a minor, is the welfare and best
interest of the child. He submits that the petitioner is a poor woman and does
not possess sufficient financial resources to maintain the minor corpus and
that it was for this reason that the corpus was given in adoption to
respondent No. 5.


8. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 5 has been taking
care of the minor corpus for the last about two years and that the corpus has
developed a strong emotional bond with her, having been brought up by her
as her mother. It is submitted that if the custody of the minor corpus is
                                                         HABC No. 1356 of 2026
                                3

abruptly transferred to the petitioner at this stage, the same may cause
emotional distress to the minor and may not be conducive to her overall
welfare. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5, along with respondent
No. 7, is taking proper care of the corpus and is financially capable of
providing her with a secure and stable environment. It is, therefore,
submitted that, keeping in view the paramount welfare of the minor corpus,
her custody ought not to be transferred to the petitioner.


9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the instant habeas corpus petition.


10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the biological mother of the
minor corpus, Mishti, who is aged about two and a half years. It is also
admitted by the petitioner that she had earlier entrusted the custody of the
corpus to respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, and respondent No. 6, Sachinder
Singh. Her present claim for custody is primarily based upon the subsequent
separation of respondent No. 5 from Sachinder Singh and her marriage with
respondent No. 7, Deepak.


11. From the material placed on record, including the adoption deed
produced before the Court, it appears that the petitioner has three children
from her wedlock with Parvesh @ Bhola and that, at the relevant time, she
was facing financial hardship and was unable to adequately maintain her
children. It is in this background that the custody of the minor corpus was
entrusted to respondent No. 5 and her then husband.


12. The matter was also considered by the Child Welfare Committee,
District Ghaziabad. The counselling report dated 11.09.2026, placed before
the Court, records that the petitioner and her husband, Parvesh @ Bhola, are
financially poor and are unable to adequately maintain their children,
whereas respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, and respondent No. 7, Deepak,
possess sufficient financial capacity to maintain the minor corpus. The report
further records that the minor corpus has developed sufficient emotional
bonding with respondent No. 5. After considering the circumstances, the
Child Welfare Committee declined to hand over the custody of the minor
corpus to the petitioner.


13. So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding the validity and admissibility of the adoption deed is concerned,
this Court does not consider it necessary, in the present habeas corpus
                                                        HABC No. 1356 of 2026
                               4

proceedings, to finally adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of the said
document. Any dispute regarding the legal validity, effect or enforceability
of the alleged adoption deed may appropriately be adjudicated upon by the
competent forum in appropriate proceedings. For the purposes of the present
proceedings, this Court is primarily concerned with the question as to what
arrangement would presently serve the paramount welfare and best interest
of the minor corpus.


14. In matters concerning the custody of a minor, the welfare of the child is
of paramount consideration. The fact that the petitioner is the biological
mother of the corpus is undoubtedly a relevant consideration; however, the
claim of custody cannot be determined solely on that basis, particularly
when the Court is required to consider the overall welfare and best interest
of the minor.


15. In the present case, the minor corpus is aged about two and a half years
and has been continuously residing with respondent No. 5 for the last about
two years. From her demeanour and conduct before the Court, it was
apparent that she was comfortable in the company of respondent No. 5 and
respondent No. 7. The material placed before the Court further indicates that
the corpus has developed emotional bonding with respondent No. 5. The
report of the Child Welfare Committee also supports the continuance of the
present arrangement. The financial circumstances of the petitioner, as
noticed in the aforesaid report, and the circumstances in which respondent
Nos. 5 and 7 are presently maintaining the minor corpus are also relevant
considerations.


16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that an
abrupt change in the custody of the minor corpus at this stage may not be
conducive to her overall welfare and may cause disruption in the stable
environment in which she has been residing for a considerable period. The
petitioner had also earlier voluntarily entrusted the custody of the minor
corpus to respondent No. 5. Having regard to the tender age of the corpus,
her existing emotional bond with respondent No. 5, the period for which she
has remained in her care, the financial circumstances of the petitioner, and
the report of the Child Welfare Committee, this Court is not inclined to
direct transfer of the custody of the minor corpus to the petitioner.


17. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for handing over the custody of
the minor corpus, Mishti, to her is declined.
                                                                                               HABC No. 1356 of 2026
                                                                     5

                                    18. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is the biological
                                    mother of the minor corpus, it would be appropriate to preserve and facilitate
                                    the bond between the mother and the child. The petitioner shall, therefore, be
                                    entitled to visitation and interaction with the minor corpus in the following
                                    manner:


                                    (i) The petitioner shall be permitted to meet the minor corpus at Police
                                    Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, on every Sunday between 2:00
                                    P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 shall ensure that the petitioner
                                    is permitted to meet and interact with the corpus during the aforesaid period.


                                    (ii) The petitioner shall also be permitted to interact with the minor corpus
                                    through video conferencing every day between 6:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M.
                                    Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 shall extend necessary cooperation to facilitate
                                    such interaction.


                                    19. It is clarified that the aforesaid arrangement shall not prejudice the rights
                                    of either party before the competent forum in any proceedings concerning
                                    the legal status, validity or effect of the adoption deed.


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



                                                                                                 (Sandeep Jain,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Mayank




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