# Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-21
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-dinesh-kumar-agarwal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54022
- **Pages:** 34

## Text

_Characters 0–39,954 of 120,270. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39954 for what follows._

1 All. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1321

35. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal dated 30.07.2011 is
modified to the above extent.

36. If any amount has been paid by the insurance company previously, then the insurance
company is entitled to adjust it accordingly. The insurance company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned tribunal within two months. The tribunal
will be at liberty to proportionally award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants
keeping in view their age and dependency.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1321
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.01.2026
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 221 of 2023 & 225 of 2023

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether, in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, custody of a minor child already held to be lawful with
the mother could be transferred to the father in intra-court appeal arising out of habeas corpus proceedings;
(ii) Whether, in the alternative, the Court ought to direct that the minor child be sent to a boarding school in
the alleged interest of his welfare;
(iii) Whether modification of visitation arrangements by the learned Single Judge was justified when the
original visitation order itself remained unimplemented.

Headnotes
Child Custody - Habeas Corpus - Scope - Custody already adjudicated:

Held: Where custody of the minor child had already been adjudicated and restored to the mother pursuant to
orders affirmed by the Supreme Court, and subsequent habeas corpus petition filed by the father stood
dismissed, the issue of custody cannot be reopened in intra-court appeal in absence of emergent or
exceptional circumstances. [Paras 60, 77]

Child Custody - Paramount consideration - Welfare of child:

Held: Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and must be assessed on holistic factors including
stability, education, environment and emotional well-being - Mere comparative financial superiority of one
parent is not determinative - Where the child is settled, studying well and accustomed to the mother's care,
change of custody is unwarranted. [Paras 73-76]

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction - Limits - Absence of exceptional circumstances:
Held: Though the Court possesses wide powers under parens patriae jurisdiction, such powers must be
exercised on cogent material - In absence of evidence indicating adverse environment or harm to the child,
drastic measures like change of custody cannot be resorted to. [Paras 59, 76-77]
1322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Child Custody - Boarding school - Direction to send child - Refusal:

Held: Sending a minor child to a boarding school cannot be directed merely to resolve parental conflict or
facilitate visitation - Such decision requires psychological evaluation and expert material - In absence
thereof, no such direction can be issued. [Paras 79-80]

Child Custody - Visitation rights - Modification - Validity:
Held: Where original visitation order was comprehensive and remained unimplemented, modification by
introducing minor changes was unwarranted - The original visitation order dated 06.01.2022 was sufficient
and required adherence rather than alteration. [Paras 83-85]

Child Custody - Pending guardianship proceedings - Effect:

Held: Substantive rights of custody are to be adjudicated in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act
- Observations in habeas corpus or intra-court appeal shall not prejudice such proceedings - Parties are at
liberty to agitate all issues before the competent court. [Paras 78, 81-82]

Result: Appeals disposed of - No change in custody - Direction to adhere to original visitation order -
Liberty to parties before Family Court. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, (1982) 2 SCC 544 - referred to; Sheoli
Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490 - referred to; Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020)
3 SCC 67 - relied on; Amyru Dwivedi v. Abhinav Dwivedi, (2021) 4 SCC 698 - referred to; Col.
Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, [2024] 6 SCR 259 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Child custody; Habeas corpus; Welfare of child; Parens patriae; Visitation rights; Boarding school; Modification
of orders; Guardianship proceedings; Stability of child; Shared parenting.

List of Keywords
Child custody; Habeas corpus; Welfare of child; Parens patriae; Visitation rights; Boarding school; Modification
of orders; Guardianship proceedings; Stability of child; Shared parenting.

Case Arising From
Order dated 07.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 9307 of 2020,
modifying earlier visitation order dated 06.01.2022.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Shri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meha Rashmi, Ashok Kumar
Singh, Anilesh Tewari, Siddhartha Sinha
For the Respondents: Learned C.S.C.; Shri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate with Meenakshi Singh
Parihar, Divyarth Singh Chauhan, Govind Narayan Shukla, Sushil Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Two warring spouses have filed the instant two intra-court appeals assailing the order dated
07.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby three applications filed, were disposed of
by the said order, in a Habeas Corpus Petition No.9307 of 2020.
1 All. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1323

2. The two spouses have been at loggerheads and have filed multiple petitions which have had
a chequered history and in order to appreciate the controversy, it will be appropriate to take a
glance at the facts which have given rise to the instant intra-court appeals.

3. Intra-court Appeal No.221 of 2023 has been filed by the father and the grandparents of the
detenue whereas Intra-court Appeal No.225 of 2023 has been filed by the mother of the detenue.
For the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the appellants of Intra-court Appeal
No.221 of 2023 as 'father', 'grandparents' as the case may be, the respondent No.2 i.e. the detenue
shall be referred as the 'son' and the respondent No.3, who is also the appellant of the connected
Intra-court Appeal No.225 of 2023, shall be referred to as the 'mother'.

4. The facts have been taken from the Intra-court Appeal No.221 of 2023, however, wherever
required, the relevant facts of the connected Intra-court Appeal No.225 of 2023 shall also be
noticed.

5. Since, the issue involved in both the intra-court appeals is the same including the parties,
hence, both the intra-court appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

6. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Deepti Goel were married on 30.06.2017. They were
blessed with a son on 03.07.2018. Both the aforesaid spouses could not stay together for long as
their married life was ensconced with bitterness and acrimonious legal proceedings. The son has
been caught in the cross fire and is a victim of battle between the spouses.

7. Both the appellants are well educated and are professional degree holders in their own
rights. The father is a Doctor by profession whereas the mother is an Assistant Professor. On
account of matrimonial disputes, the mother left her matrimonial home at Dhanbad in the State of
Jharkhand alongwith her minor son and started living in Lucknow with her parents. In the month of
July, 2020, the father came down to Lucknow to meet with his son and he stayed at the residence of
his in-laws at Lucknow. During his stay at Lucknow, it is alleged that the father on the pretext of
taking his son for a short drive, instead, took his son out of the care and custody of his mother and
drove down to Dhanbad and that too without informing or intimating the mother.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the mother lodged an FIR and also instituted a Habeas Corpus
Petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court, registered as Writ Petition No.9307 of 2020
(HC) [Master Devansh Agarwal Detenue through Mother and next friend Deepti Goel and
another v. State of U.P. and others].

9. The record further reflects that the learned Single Judge seized with the Habeas Corpus
Petition had passed an order of production of the detenue, however, the order could not be
communicated to the father. In the meantime, the father instituted two petitions at Dhanbad, one
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act of 1955') which was registered
as Case No.333 of 2020 and another petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which was
registered as Case No.385 of 2020.
1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The mother approached the Apex Court, at this stage, by filing a transfer petition seeking
transfer of the two suits filed by the father at Dhanbad, to Lucknow. The mother also filed a suit
under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 at Lucknow and also an FIR under Section 498-A, 336, 506
IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

11. The learned Single Judge seized with Habeas Corpus Petition found that the order of
production of the detenue was not being complied with, hence, it directed the police concerned to
ensure the production of the detenue before the Court fixing 05.01.2022. On the said date, before
the learned Single Judge, the Government Counsel informed that the detenue and the father were at
New Delhi in connection with a petition filed by the father, before the Apex Court, challenging the
order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.12.2021. However, the said Special Leave Petition
of the father was dismissed on 05.01.2022 and the Apex Court had directed them to appear in the
Habeas Corpus Petition at Lucknow. On the basis of the said information, the learned Single Judge
fixed the matter on the next day i.e. 06.01.2022.

12. On the said date, the father along with the detenue appeared before the learned Single
Judge, who after taking note of the earlier orders including the order passed by the Apex Court
dated 05.01.2022 directed the custody and corpus of the detenue i.e. son, be handed over to the
mother and thereafter it considered the plea of the father regarding visitation rights and passed a
detailed order, which reads as under:-

"Called on.

Today on 06.01.2022, Sub Inspector Sri Durga Prasad Yadav, PNO 930440020 and lady
Constable Ms. Antima Singh PNO 112304472, Police Station, District Lucknow appeared before
the Court to produce the child Master Devansh Agarwal with his father Dr. Dinesh Agarwal in
Court in compliance of judgment and order dated 14.12.2021 and subsequent order dated
21.12.2021.

In accordance with the order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 10080 of 2021 (Dr. Dinesh Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and others) by Hon'ble Apex Court with
direction to hand over the child to mother at 2:00 p.m., the child is handed over today to the
mother Smt. Deepti Goel.

The father Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, private opposite party no. 3 and mother, next friend of
the child Master Devansh Agarwal, Smt. Deepti Goel both have signed the ordersheet with regard
to delivery of child to the mother and receiving by the mother, the petitioner's next friend.

In the order dated 14.12.2021, order as to visitation right to father was kept contingent
upon the handing over the child by opposite party no.3, Dr. Dinesh Agarwal to the petitioner's next
friend Smt. Deepti Goel, therefore this is the occasion to pass the order with regard to right of
visitation of the child to the father.

(i) On conversation with opposite party no. 3, Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of the child
Master Devansh Agarwal, as per his request, on every weekend (Sunday) shall visit the child at the
residence of petitioner's next friend Smt. Deepti Goel i.e. B-47, Sector-H, Aliganj, District Lucknow
where the petitioner's next friend the mother Smt. Deepti Goel use to reside with the child.

(ii) In case, for any reason if opposite party no. 3 Dr. Dinesh Agarwal fails to visit the
child on Sunday, after informing the next immediate day after Sunday within one or two days to the
petitioner's next friend Smt. Deepti Goel, may visit the child on that altered day.
1 All. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1325

(iii) Reciprocally, the petitioner's next friend, mother of the child Master Devansh shall
ensure to remain present at the House No. B-47, Sector-H, Aliganj, District Lucknow for the
purpose of complying with the direction as to the visitation right given to the father or on any other
date as stipulated herein-above. The mother shall not leave or change the house of her abode with
child without seeking prior permission of the Court and informing to the father of the child,
opposite party no. 3. She will not leave with child Master Devansh the jurisdiction of the Court
without prior permission as directed herein-above.

(iv) The father, opposite party no. 3 will have the right to visit the child Master Devansh
within 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. in day time in the presence of petitioner's mother or any other family
members of her parental house, in their supervision and control, however they are not permitted to
make any obstruction in such visiting of the child by the father.

(v) The father of Master Devansh, opposite party no. 3, will have a right to contact with
the child Master Devansh his son, telephonically either audio or video mode. For this purpose the
mother will facilitate such telephonic connection with father of the child. It may be appropriate for
both of them (father and mother of the child Master Devansh) to fix a particular time for the
purpose of telephonic conversation with child.

(vi) The father if wants to give any gift in love and affection with child, brings anything
for his use or do something necessary for well being of child, the mother, petitioner's next friend or
any of the family members of her parental house will not make any forbiddance or obstruction in
such acts. However, father shall keep in mind that such things would be safe in use and
occupationed by the child.

(vii) Since the child is of so young age that still is under scheduled vaccination prescribed
by the health department, the record of vaccination and as to the further vaccination shall be
handed over by the father Dr. Dinesh Agarwal to the mother Smt. Deepti Goel as soon as possible
within 15 days from the date of order so that further vaccination, if any, may be given timely
without failure on her part.

(viii) It would be the duty of the father, whenever he visits the child to maintain the safe
distance, put mask and keep the hand sanitized and to follow the protocol of the Covid-19
guidelines.

(ix) It is expected that the father till now has been twice vaccinated. If it is not so, he will
ensure to be vaccinated twice as soon as possible. Mother shall also keep herself vaccinated twice.

(x) In case, the father is twice vaccinated with Covid-19 Vaccine, the rider of the safe
distance and putting mask need not to be followed during visitation.

Looking into the pendency of matrimonial petition in competent court of law, the request
of opposite party no. 3 with regard to overnight stay during visit to the child in the home of the
petitioner's next friend, the mother of the child, is not permitted. However, this would be subject to
the result of possible mediation held between them in such legal proceeding"

13. The father visited Lucknow on several occasions in furtherance of visitation order dated
06.01.2022, however, it is his grievance that the mother did not cooperate to allow the father to
meet his son and despite detailed directions having been given by the learned Single Judge in its
order, yet efforts were made to frustrate the spirit and intent of the visitation order.
1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. The father being aggrieved from the attitude of the mother in not facilitating the visitation
order rather she was alleged of creating obstructions, hence, the father filed a fresh Habeas Corpus
Petition bearing No.353 of 2022.

15. Another learned Single Judge of this Court by means of the judgment and order dated
20.10.2022 passed in the above-mentioned Habeas Corpus Petition No.353 of 2022 dismissed the
petition filed by the father. The order dated 20.10.2022 reads as under:-

"Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Meha Rashmi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Singh appearing for respondent no.3 as well as
learned AGA for the respondents no.1 and 2 and perused the record.

The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
requesting for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus with the following prayers:-

"a) issue a writ of habeas corpus or a writ, order or diction in the nature of habeas
corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner in person in this Hon'ble Court to be set
at liberty forthwith and be freed from the custody of the respondents no. 3 to 7.

b) direct the respondents no. 3 to 7 to forthwith cease making video recording of the
meeting between the petitioenr and his father and surrender original copies of all the recordings
made by her of previous meetings before this Hon'ble Court and file an affidavit of compliance in
this regard;

c) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed."

Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (next friend/
father ) Dr. Dinesh Agrawal, submits that the detenue is the son of the petitioner and he has been
illegally confined/ restrained by the respondents no.3 to 7 and the custody of the petitioner is not
safe with the respondent no.3 (mother) as she is not paying required care and attention to the
petitioner who is aged about 4 years and 3 months and is not capable of looking after himself and
is suffering from abuse and neglect at the hands of the respondents no. 3 to 7.

It is further submitted that so far as the custody of a minor children is concerned the
paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. In this connection learned Senior Counsel has
relied on paragraph no.34 of the report Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 42, in order to canvass that primary purpose of said proceeding is to secure the
welfare of the child and in order to do so the legal rights of all, including the parents could be
ignored.

While referring to the various photographs and whats app messages exchanged between
the parties, it is submitted that the respondents no.3 to 7 are not complying the order of this Court
dated 6.1.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 9307 (H/C) of 2020 so far as visiting rights provided to
the father Dr. Dinesh Agarwal is concerned, in letter and spirit.

It is further submitted that though the custody of the detenue has been provided to the
respondent no.3 under the orders of this Court but due to the change of circumstances the order
dated 14.12.2021 could be interfered in order to secure the welfare of the detenue - child.

It is further submitted that since upbringing of the detenue is not good under the hands of
the respondent no.3, as an interim measure the detenue be directed to be produced before this
Court and be given in the custody of next friend/ father. To buttress his submissions learned Senior
1 All. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1327
Counsel had relied on paragraph 18 of the report (1973) 1 SCC 840 Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob A.
Chakramakkal.

Shri Sushil Kumar Singh appearing for respondent no.3 on the other hand submits that in
Writ Petition No. 9307 (H/C) of 2020, vide order dated 14.12.2021 the father/ next friend was
directed to produce the child in the Court for the purpose of handing over the custody of the child
to the respondent no.3 (mother) and against this order the father/ next friend had approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing an Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10080 of 2021,
however, vide order dated 5.1.2022 the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the next friend /
father was directed to handover the child to the mother and it was in compliance of the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court the custody of the child was given to the mother/ respondent no.3. Thus the
order dated 14.12.2021 of this Court, whereby the custody of the child/ detenue was directed to be
given to the mother/ respondent no.3 was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and so far as the
issue of custody of the child is concerned the same has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the same could not be interfered by initiating the proceeding by filing writ of habeas
corpus again.

He further submits that vide order dated 25.1.2021 passed in Special Lave to Appeal No.
586/2021 the Supreme Court has referred the matter for mediation also.

It is also submitted that an application for recall of the order dated 14.11.2021 was also
filed by the petitioner.

It is also submitted that the aforesaid writ petition wherein the custody of the detenue was
provided to the mother/ respondent no.3 is still pending and the same has been listed today also
before an appropriate Court and there was neither any requirement nor any occasion for the
petitioner to have filed the instant petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties having perused the record, it is evident that
Writ Petition No. 9307 (H/C) of 2020 was initially filed on behalf of the detnue by her mother,
namely, Smt. Deepti Goel and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2021 after
considering the rival submissions of the parties by writing a detailed judgment had directed that
the mother/ respondent no.3 deserves the custody of the child and the custody of the child which
was till that time was with the father (petitioner) was directed to be given to the mother/ respondent
no.3 and for this purpose the child was directed to be produced in the Court on 20.12.2021 at 2.00
P.M. This order was challenged by the petitioner of the instant petition before the Hon'ble Apex
Court by filing an S.L.P. and while rejecting the S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10080 of 2021 the Apex Court
vide order dated 5.1.2022 declined to interfere in the judgement passed by the High Court and
dismissed the S.L.P. with a direction to handover the child to the mother on 6.1.2022 at 2.00 P.M.
and it is in compliance of this order of the Hon'ble Apex Court the custody of the child was shifted
and given to the mother/ respondent no.3. Thus, so far as the dispute pertaining to the custody of
the child is concerned, the same was finally set at rest by the order dated 5.1.2022 by the Hon'ble
Apex Court passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10080/2021 and in the considered opinion of this Court
could not be reopened by filing a writ of habeas corpus again.

Now coming to the next submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the order of this Court dated 6.1.2022 pertaining to the visiting rights given to the
petitioner is not being complied in letter and spirit and in this regard learned Senior Counsel has
drawn the attention of this Court towards various photographs and whats app messages exchanged
between the parties. It is evident that Writ Petition No. 9307 (H/C) of 2020 wherein the order for
transferring of the custody of the child detenue was passed and the vising rights were also given to
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the instant petitioner vide order dated 6.1.2022 is still pending before this Court and in this regard
an order of date 30.8.2022 has been placed before this Court by Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent no.3, which shows that petition has also been heard in part by a Coordinate
Bench.

It is also admitted to the parties that a contempt petition has also been filed by the instant
petitioner against respondent no.3.

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court if there is any grievance to any party
pertaining to the non compliance of the order dated 6.1.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 9307
(H/C) of 2020, which is still pending, the same could only be agitated in the same writ petition and
could not be raised by filing another writ petition, more so in the life of Writ Petition No. 9307
(H/C) of 2020.

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court for the reasons aforesaid and keeping in
view the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed
in Writ Petition No. 9307 (H/C) of 2020, which is still alive, the instant writ petition, so far as the
prayers sought by the petitioenr is concerned, is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

However, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from
approaching this Court by filing any application in Writ Petition No. 9307 (H/C) of 2020, which is
still pending, for the purpose of compliance of order dated 06.01.2022 or for modification of that
or any other forum for the purpose of establishing his right to the custody of detenue, as provided
in para No. 85 of the Judgment dated 14.12.2021 passed in Habeas Corpus No. 9307 of 2020."

16. The father thereafter filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No.1214 of 2022 alleging
violation and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Habeas Corpus
Petition No.9307 of 2020 filed by the mother. The said contempt application was entertained by the
Contempt Court and the record further reflects that the mother and the son, were also called before
the Contempt Court, however, nothing significant transpired in the contempt proceedings except
that the assurances were extended by the mother before the Contempt Court, that she would
facilitate a cordial meeting of the father and the son in terms of the visitation order dated
06.01.2022.

17. Be that as it may, despite efforts made by the Contempt Court to facilitate the
implementation of the visitation order but the chasm between the warring spouses could not be
bridged. Ultimately, the Contempt Court by its detailed order dated 27.08.2025 dismissed the
contempt application and the relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereinafter:-

"6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant, who runs his own
hospital at Dhanbad, is a renowned spine surgeon and the child is entitled for getting privileges
from his father for his better development and for getting comfort of the material of the world. The
respondent, on the other hand, is unemployed and a dependent lady.

Learned Senior Counsel also proposed that in the event, the respondent is violating the
directions of the writ Court, the Court, under the parens patriae jurisdiction, may pass order to
send the child to a Boarding School, where he would be properly taken care of, groomed and
would have an occasion to mix around with the children of his own age.

It has been added by learned counsel for the applicant that being a Court of record,
inherent powers can be exercised under Article 215 of Constitution of India and the minor child
1 All. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1329
may be sent to Boarding School with such arrangements, as may be deemed just and necessary, to
divide the period of vacation of the child in the company of his parents equally.

While giving the list of Boarding Schools, it has been submitted by Sri Chandra that the
applicant is ready to bear all the expenses of the Boarding School.

7. The list of the top Boarding Schools produced before this Court is as under:-

Sr.
No.
School
Address
Board
Grade
Gender
1.
Doon
International
School
(Riverside Campus)

University Nanda Ki Chowki, 4 kms from
Petroleum
Pondha,
Dehradun,
Uttarakhand 248007
CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
2.
Ganga International School

Rohtak Road, Hiran Kudna, New Delhi,
Delhi, 110041

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
3.
Roots Country School

Trimount View, P.O. Baghi, Teh, Kotkhai,
Himachal Pradesh, 171225

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co -ed
4.
GD
Goenka
International
School, Rohtak

8th Mile Stone, Sonepat Road, Rohtak,
124001, Haryana

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
5.
Pinegrove School

Kasauli Road, Dharampur, Himachal
Pradesh- 173209

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
6.
New Era Public School

Chesson Road, Panchgini Satara District,
Maharashtra- 412805

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
7.
Birla Public School, Pilani

Vdya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani
Rajasthan, 333031

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
8.
Emerald Heights International
School

A.B. Road, Rau, opposite Akashwani,
Indore, M.P., 453331

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
9.
The Asian School

Asian Acres, Vasant Vihar, Indra Nagar
Colony, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248006

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed
10.
Vidyasagar International School

Jafarpur
Majra,
Gharora,
Greater,
Manjhawali Road,
Tigaon, Haryana,
121101

CBSE
1st to 12th
Co-ed

15. Having perused the record, it is also evident that the order dated 14.12.2021 was
challenged by the applicant before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 10080
of 2021, which was dismissed on 05.01.2022 directing the father to hand over the child to the
mother on 06.01.2022 at 2:00 pm. The order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal
No. 10080 of 2021 is as under:-

"We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court. The
Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

However, the petitioner is directed to hand over the child to Respondent No.4 tomorrow
i.e. 06.01.2022 at 2.00 p.m."

16. Evidently, the child was produced before this Court on 06.01.2022 and he was handed
over to the mother by giving visitation rights to the father. Thereafter, the orders passed in the
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
habeas corpus writ petition were challenged by the applicant as well as the respondent in Special
Appeal No. 221 of 2023 (Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) and
Special Appeal No. 225 of 2023 (Master Devansh Agarwal (Detenue), thru. his mother Smt. Deepti
Goel and Anr. Vs. Stae of U.P. and Ors.). It is undisputed that these special appeals are pending
before the Division Bench.

The order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench with the consent of the parties in
Special Appeal No. 221 of 2023 and Special Appeal No. 225 of 2023 reads as under:-

"1. Both the parties are present and they are represented by their respective counsel.

2. The operative part of the order passed by this Court on 6.7.2023 operating between the
parties reads as under :-

"The matter shall now be listed on 27.07.2023.

On the next date of listing, the appellant No.1/Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and
respondent No.3/Smt. Deepti Agarwal shall be present before the Court.

In the meantime, the visitation arrangement in terms of the order dated 06.01.2022
passed in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 9303 of 2020 shall continue till the next date of listing.

However, we provide that while the father visits the child at his in-laws' place, he shall be
free to bring with him gifts or any food items or fruits, whereas the mother of the child will also be
free to provide necessary foods.

We also provide that visitation period will be five hours.

We request the mother of the child that she shall try her level best to be present during
the period the father visits the child.

We request the parents of the child to try to maintain a congenial atmosphere during the
visitation hours".

3. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties who are also present in person, we
modify the operative part of the order dated 6.7.2023 to the extent that the visitation period
restricted up to five hours is enhanced to ten hours. This period would begin at 10 O' clock in the
morning and last up to 8.00 p.m. on the date of visit. During this period, the wife namely Deepti
Agarwal shall treat her husband well by providing him humble treatment and hospitality. The
father shall be left at liberty to meet the child without interference of any relatives. The father shall
maintain dignified standard of behaviour towards the child and family members. No obstruction
shall be caused by any family member during the visitation period and hassle-free atmosphere
shall be maintained at the time of ingress and egress for the father. Other conditions stipulated in
the order dated 6.7.2023 shall remain intact until further orders of this Court.

4. This order has been passed as mutually agreed between the parties.

5. List/put up on 29.4.2025."

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and discussions coupled with the fact that the dispute is
being adjudicated by the Division Bench and the interim order dated 27.03.2025 (supra) was passed
with mutual consent of the parties in the pending special appeals, i.e., Special Appeal No. 221 of
2023 (Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) and Special Appeal No. 225
of 2023 (Master Devansh Agarwal (Detenue), thru. his mother Smt. Deepti Goel and Anr. Vs. Stae
of U.P. and Ors.), this Court is of the view that judgments relied by learned counsel for the
1 All. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1331
applicant are not applicable in the present case, hence, no contempt is made out. Accordingly, the
contempt application, being misconceived, stands dismissed."

18. The father again assailed the order dated 27.08.2025 passed in contempt proceedings
before the Apex Court. It will also be relevant to point out that while the aforesaid proceedings
were being agitated in different forums, the father had also moved an application bearing IA No.14
of 2022 on 07.03.2022 seeking recall of the order dated 14.12.2021 and 06.01.2022 passed in
Habeas Corpus Petition No.9307 of 2020. Significantly, the mother also moved an application
seeking modification of the order dated 06.01.2022 in Habeas Corpus Petition No.9307 of 2020
which was bearing Application IA No.15 of 2022.

19. While the two applications were pending in the Habeas Corpus Petition No.9307 of 2020,
thereafter the father made another application in the Habeas Corpus Petition No.9307 of 2020 on
02.12.2022 bearing Application IA No.25 of 2022, wherein it sought the modification of the
orders dated 14.12.2021 and 06.01.2022.

20. It is these three applications (two filed by the father i.e. Application IA No.14 of 2022 and
Application IA No.25 of 2022 and one filed by the mother bearing Application IA No.15 of 2022)
which came to be considered by the learned Single Judge, who by means of its order dated
07.04.2023 decided the said three applications. As a consequence, the earlier detailed visitation
order dated 06.01.2022 came to be modified with certain observations, which are reproduced
hereinafter:-

"24. In the present case the detenue is living with his mother as directed by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2022. The custody of minor son Master Devansh
Agarwal shall remain with the mother but the parties will be at liberty to get their exclusive rights
for custody of the minor son Master Devansh Agarwal as guardian by filing appropriate
application under the Guardians and Wards Act or before any other forum in accordance with law.

Further, in the interest of justice and considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, the orders dated 14.12.2021 and 06.01.2022 are modified to the following
extent:

1. During Summer Season (April to September): Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of the
detenue-Master Devansh Agarwal as agreed will have right to visit the child Master Devansh at the
residence of detenue's mother Smt. Deepti Goyal at House No. B-47, Sector-H, Aliganj, District
Lucknow, where she used to reside with the child between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. on every
Sunday of each month w.e.f. 09.04.2023 and onwards in the presence of mother of the detenue,
namely, Smt Deepti Goyal or any other family members of her parental house, in their supervision
and control, however they are not permitted to make any obstruction in such visiting of the child by
the father.

Further on the same day, Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of the detenue-Master Devansh
Agarwal, shall have visitation rights to meet Master Devansh Agarwal in the neighbourhood park
i.e. Science Centre, Aliganj, Lucknow between 5.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. in the presence of detenue's
mother/ her next friend Smt Deepti Goyal or any other family members of her parental house, in
their supervision and control, however they are not permitted to make any obstruction in such
visiting of the child by the father and before 8.00 p.m. the minor child should be safely given in the
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
custody of detenue's mother/ her next friend Smt Deepti Goyal at her residence address, as noted
above by the father-respondent No.3 Dr. Dinesh Agarwal.

2. During Winter Season (October to March): Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of the detenueMaster Devansh Agarwal, shall have visitation rights to meet Master Devansh Agarawal in the
neighbourhood park i.e. Science Centre, Aliganj, Lucknow between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on
every Sunday of each month in the presence of mother of the detenue/ her next friend, namely Smt.
Deepti Goyal or any other family members of her parental house, in their supervision and control,
however they are not permitted to make any obstruction in such visiting of the child by the father
and before 1.30 p.m. the minor child should be safely given in the custody of detenue's mother/ her
next friend Smt Deepti Goyal at her residence address, as noted above.

Further on the same day Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of the detenue-Master Devansh
Agarwal will have to right to visit the child Master Devansh at the residence of Smt. Deepti Goyal
at House No. B-47, Sector-H, Aliganj, District Lucknow, where she used to reside with the child
between 05.00 p.m. to 07.30 p.m. on every Sunday of each month in the presence of detnue's
mother/ her next friend or any other family members of her parental house, in their supervision and
control, however they are not permitted to make any obstruction in such visiting of the child by the
father.

3. The grandfather and grandmother of the detenue-Master Devansh Agarwal are also
permitted to meet the detenue along with Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of the corpus on fourth
Sunday of each month (January to December) at any standard Hotel/Shopping Mall/Restaurant
within the 5 Km radius of house of petitioner's next friend/mother-Smt Deepti Goyal for
refreshment and outing and to build the social and mental ability of the child in the morning
between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for the first meeting and in the evening between 5.00 p.m to 7.30
p.m. for the second meeting. The minor child should be safely given in the custody of petitioner's
next friend / mother-Smt Deepti Goyal at her residence address i.e. House No. B-47, Sector-H,
Aliganj, District Lucknow before 1.30 p.m in the aftenoon after first meeting and before 8.00 pm in
the night after second meeting . The petitioner-Smt Deepti Goyal and her one relative may also
accompany the detenue, if they so desired during that period.

4. In case, for any reason if respondent No. 3-Dr. Dinesh Agarwal fails to visit the child
on Sunday, after informing the next immediate day after Sunday within one or two days to the
petitioner's next friend/ mother Smt. Deepti Goel, may visit the child on that altered day.

5. Dr.