# Dr. Bhavna Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1732
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 243 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-bhavna-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54708
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Edward Biggon the laws of a nation form the most instructive portion of its history. The Constitution as
the organic law of the land has unfolded itself in a manifold manner like a living organism in the various
decisions of the court about the rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When
citizenry rights are sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the members of City Halls, there has to be
a rebound and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the Constitution springs up to action as a
protector."

 27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled
to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of
guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, there are also flagrant
violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers
in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which
has been postulated in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa - (1993) 2 SCC 746, Sube Singh v. State of
Haryana-(2006) 3 SCC 178, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. - (2012) 1 SCC 748 comes into play. The
constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has
been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and
circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards
compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be
open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised."

14. Keeping the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of habeas corpus is issued
declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal. The remand order dated 28.1.2026 being consequential to the
illegal arrest is also set aside. The petitioner be set free provided he is not wanted in any other case. However,
it would be open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

15. Further, considering the illegal arrest of the petitioner since 27.1.2026 which continues even as
of date i.e. 29.4.2026 and his illegal incarceration in jail being of more than three months, the Court is of the
view that exemplary costs quantified at Rupees Ten Lakhs are also imposed on the State authorities.

16. The said cost shall be paid at the first instance by the State Government with the liberty to
recover the same from the officials who were responsible in accordance with law. The said cost shall be paid
to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1732
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 243 of 2026

Dr. Bhavna Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Dr. Bhavna Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1733
Issue for Consideration
Whether custody of the Corpus (minor child) be given to the petitioner (mother) on the ground that the
Respondent (father) is habitually addicted to alcohol, has a history of domestic violence, and lacks the
requisite financial stability to ensure the proper upbringing and welfare of the minor.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus)- Petitioner is a well-educated,
professionally qualified, and financially independent individual, fully capable of securing the
welfare and future prospects of the minor- Petitioner has secured admission of the corpus in
Bishop Cotton School, Shimla, and has already deposited a substantial amount towards the fees
for the Academic Session 2026-27, wherein the corpus is to be enrolled in Class V. The said
institution, being a reputed residential school of high academic standing, offers significantly
superior educational and developmental opportunities when compared to the available
institutions in District Meerut- Respondent No. 3 suffers from chronic alcoholism, has undergone
a liver transplant on 12.01.2025, and has demonstrated financial dependency, as evidenced by
the fact that the medical expenses for the said procedure were borne by his mother- Entrusting
the custody of the minor to the father would not be conducive to the child's overall welfare,
stability, and long-term development.

Held-The paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child, which must override all
other considerations, including the legal rights of the parents. Applying this settled principle to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered view that the welfare of the corpus would be best served by
allowing him to continue his education at Bishop Cotton School, Shimla, as arranged by the petitioner.
Petition disposed of. (E-15)

(Para 9, 10 & 11)
Case Law Cited
Rajeshwari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 12 SCC 472 :Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs. State
of Karnataka and others (2021) 12 SCC 376; Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
(2022) 20 SCC 550;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Custody of Minor child; Paramount consideration; Welfare of child; Override all other considerations; Habeas
Corpus

Case Arising From
Petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has been instituted by the petitioner, mother of the minor
child. The petitioner asserts her lawful entitlement to the custody of the corpus on the grounds that
Respondent No. 3, the father, is habitually addicted to alcohol, has a history of domestic violence, and lacks
the requisite financial stability to ensure the proper upbringing and welfare of the minor.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranshu Gupta, Vinayak Mithal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mohit Kumar, Sai Girdhar, Vandana Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vikrant Rana learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandra Rai Singh learned
counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent.
1734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. The present petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has been instituted by the
petitioner, Dr. Bhavna Singh, the biological mother of the minor child (hereinafter referred to as the
?corpus?). The petitioner asserts her lawful entitlement to the custody of the corpus on the grounds
that Respondent No. 3, the father, is habitually addicted to alcohol, has a history of domestic
violence, and lacks the requisite financial stability to ensure the proper upbringing and welfare of
the minor.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a qualified medical professional residing in Gautam
Buddh Nagar and is financially self-sufficient. The corpus, presently aged about ten years, has been
admitted to class V in Bishop Cotton School, Shimla for the Academic Session 2026?2027, and the
petitioner has incurred substantial expenditure amounting to approximately Rs. 17,00,000/- towards
admission and related costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that owing to
irreconcilable matrimonial discord and ideological incompatibility between the parties,
cohabitation is no longer feasible. It is, therefore, urged that this Court may be pleased to pass
appropriate orders keeping paramount consideration of the welfare, education, and holistic
development of the minor, and permit the corpus to continue his education at the said institution
with structured visitation rights to both parents.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 does not dispute
that the respondent has been suffering from chronic alcoholism, resulting in permanent liver
damage and necessitating a liver transplant. However, it is contended that the corpus is presently
residing with the father and has been enrolled in Brainz Edu World school in Meerut, where he is
receiving adequate education. It is further submitted that the corpus shares a strong emotional bond
with his father and has expressed his preference to remain in his custody. The respondent asserts
that he possesses sufficient means of sustenance through rental and agricultural income and is
physically capable of taking care of the minor.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the material
on record, and has also interacted with the corpus in chambers.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Rajeshwari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (2023) 12 SCC 472 and Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs. State of Karnataka and others (2021) 12
SCC 376 (By 3 Judges) has held that in a petition seeking writ of habeas corpus in matter relating
to custody of child, the paramount consideration of the Court is to ascertain the welfare and best
interest of the child.

7. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors. (2022) 20 SCC 550, while drawing a clear distinction between the "best
interest of the child" and the mere ?wish or desire of the child,? has authoritatively held that in
proceedings under a writ of habeas corpus relating to child custody, paramount consideration must
be accorded to the welfare and best interest of the child, and not solely to the expressed preference
of the child. It is quoted as under:-

 "11. At the outset we may state that in a matter involving the question of custody of a
child it has to be borne in mind that the question ?what is the wish/desire of the child? is different
4 All. Dr. Bhavna Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1735
and distinct from the question ?what would be in the best interest of the child?. Certainly, the
wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ?what
would be in the best interest of the child? is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account
all the relevant circumstances.

 12. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways, as Parthian shot
they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have
the custody of the child. In the circumstances, we are of the view that for considering the claim for
custody of a minor child, unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them
unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely
looking into the question as to, ?what would be the best interest of the child concerned?. In other
words, welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration..."

8. During the course of such interaction, the corpus expressed his inclination to reside with
his father and levelled certain allegations against the petitioner, including instances of scolding and
physical reprimand. The corpus also alleged that the petitioner consumes alcohol. However, upon
careful observation of the demeanor and responses of the minor, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the statements so made appear to be influenced and tutored, lacking spontaneity and
comprehension expected of a child of his age. The allegations, being exaggerated and beyond the
natural understanding of the minor, do not inspire confidence and are, therefore, not relied upon.

9. A perusal of the record unequivocally establishes that the petitioner is a well-educated,
professionally qualified, and financially independent individual, fully capable of securing the
welfare and future prospects of the minor. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has
secured admission of the corpus in Bishop Cotton School, Shimla, and has already deposited a
substantial amount towards the fees for the Academic Session 2026?27, wherein the corpus is to be
enrolled in Class V. The said institution, being a reputed residential school of high academic
standing, offers significantly superior educational and developmental opportunities when compared
to the available institutions in District Meerut.

10. In contrast, the material on record reflects that Respondent No. 3 suffers from chronic
alcoholism, has undergone a liver transplant on 12.01.2025, and has demonstrated financial
dependency, as evidenced by the fact that the medical expenses for the said procedure were borne
by his mother. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to observe that entrusting the
custody of the minor to the father would not be conducive to the child?s overall welfare, stability,
and long-term development.

11. It is a well-settled principle of law that in matters concerning custody of a minor, the
paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child, which must override all other
considerations, including the legal rights of the parents. Applying this settled principle to the facts
of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the welfare of the corpus would be best
served by allowing him to continue his education at Bishop Cotton School, Shimla, as arranged by
the petitioner.
1736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. Accordingly, it is directed that both parents shall be entitled to visit the corpus, either
jointly or individually, once every month, in a congenial and non-disruptive environment within the
premises of the school. The Headmaster of Bishop Cotton School, Shimla, is hereby directed to
facilitate such visitation without any obstruction or inconvenience. The parties are at liberty to
bring to the notice of this Court, any grievance in this regard, for appropriate directions.

13. The parties are further directed to ensure that the corpus is duly admitted to Bishop
Cotton School, Shimla, on 26.04.2026. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Headmaster
of the said institution for information, compliance, and necessary action by the Registrar
Compliance.

14. It is further clarified that during school vacations, the custody of the corpus shall be
equally shared between the parents, subject to the wishes, comfort, and well-being of the minor,
ensuring that his emotional and psychological needs are duly respected. 15. In view of the above,
the present habeas corpus petition is disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 781 of 2025

Javed & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the detaining authority has not applied his mind, making the detention order mechanically and
arbitrarily on the recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority, and the grounds of detention are not proper
and the detention is based on speculation; not reality and whether offences attributed to the petitioner are
such that these would constitute no more than violation of the law and order

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus); The National Security Act, 1980-
Section 3(3)- The petitioner was found indulging in a particular kind of an offence that
spontaneously arouses religious passions amongst a large section of the community, inciting
them to indulge in violence with the imminent likelihood of vitiation of public order in the locale.
They have slaughtered a cow, which, like always, led to frayed tempers and violent emotions
displayed by members of the public, agitating and blockading the road, and throwing life out of
gear in the locale. It is not a case, where for a simple violation of law and order or an irrelevant
consideration, like past instances of violations of law and order were taken into consideration by
the detaining Authority to infer that the detenue, if released on bail, would indulge in similar
acts, that would lead to public order being prejudicially affected.