VIVAN ALIAS VIVANSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 14 of 2026

Vivan Alias Vivansh
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Dasarathi Das, Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A.

Court No. - 88
                    HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available
on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the maternal grandmother the
corpus, seeking a direction to respondent no.2 to produce the corpus before
this Court and to ensure his lawful custody be restored with the petitioner
and to set him free from the illegal detention of the respondent nos.3 & 4,
who is the grandfather and other relative of the corpus.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the daughter of the
petitioner- Rajeshwari, namely Arti (mother of the corpus), was solemnized
with one Amrish in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is
alleged that after the marriage, Amrish subjected his wife to physical and
mental cruelty, as a result of which she was compelled to leave her
matrimonial home. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental home,
where she gave birth to a male child. Subsequently, the mother unfortunately
passed away, allegedly due to medical negligence. It is further stated that
since then the minor child has been under the care and guardianship of his
maternal grandmother, Rajeshwari, who has been looking after his
upbringing and education. The child has also been admitted to SRS
Memorial International School, Shikohabad. It has also been averred that the
daughter of Rajeshwari had filed a complaint bearing Complaint Case No.
462 of 2025 (Rachna Devi v. Virendra Singh and others) before the learned
Judicial Magistrate-II, Mainpuri, alleging commission of rape at gunpoint by
the accused persons named therein. According to the petitioner, in
connection with the said dispute, Amrish along with Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh,
                                                                                                HABC No. 14 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    Nasik, Basant, Lavkush and Virendra Singh allegedly abducted the minor
                                    son with the intention of exerting pressure for a compromise in the aforesaid
                                    case.

                                    4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent nos. 3 and
                                    4 have been illegally detained the minor child, and that such custody is
                                    unauthorized and contrary to law.

                                    5. Upon due consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, it
                                    appears that the dispute arises from a matrimonial discord and primarily
                                    concerns the custody of the minor child and the proceeding under section 25
                                    of the Guardians and Wards Act is already pending between the parties
                                    before the competent court since 14.10.2025. This Court is of the considered
                                    view that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court under the
                                    provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where the paramount
                                    consideration is the welfare of the minor child.

                                    6. In the circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find it
                                    appropriate to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
                                    Constitution of India at this stage.

                                    7. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

                                    8. However, it is expected from the learned Family Court to consider and
                                    decide the proceeding pending under the Guardians and Wards Act,
                                    expeditiously, keeping in mind the welfare of the minor child.

                                    February 10, 2026
                                    Anil K. Sharma
                                                                                              (Vinod Diwakar,J.)




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