# Gautam Saroj & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 197
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-21
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 507 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gautam-saroj-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45383
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act- Section 6(a) - The
minor's welfare, without exception, has
always been regarded as a matter of
paramount
consideration
when
the
question
is
about
appointment
or
declaration of a guardian or the custody of
a minor inter se natural guardians.

It is settled law that while deciding the custody
of a minor, the consideration of the welfare of
the minor is of paramount importance.

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890-
Section 17(2) - It is true that in situations
where a natural guardian like a father or
the mother is facing criminal trial for the
other's murder or unnatural death, as is
the case here, Courts have been generally
reluctant to entrust custody to such
parents, unless they are acquitted and
come out clean. This, however, is not an
inflexible rule that the moment a parent is
charged with a homicidal crime relating to
the other's death, he/she is to be deprived
of his/her children's custody. The Court
must consider the circumstances of the
crime, not with a view to pronounce upon
guilt or otherwise, but to broadly gauge
whether indeed the circumstances are
such that the minor's custody cannot be
trusted in the hands of the surviving
spouse.

It is not an inflexible rule that where one of the
parent is charged with the homicidal death of
the other, he would be deprived of the custody
of the child.

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890-
Section 17(2) -The father's conduct is not
apparently so blameworthy as may disentitle him to the child's custody, ipso
facto- The added circumstance that the
father is taking care of his other child,
who is the minor's sister and younger to
her - There is no complaint by the 4th
respondent about the other child's welfare
being, in any manner, not ensured with
the father.

In the facts of the case, the character and
conduct of the father, though allegedly involved
i the homicidal death of his wife, is not such
that could disentitle him from the custody of the
child moreso when the father is taking care of
the other child without any complaint.

Habeas Corpus petition allowed.
 (Para 18, 21, 25, 26) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

Nil Ratan Kundu & anr. Vs Abhijit Kundu, (2008)
9 SCC 413

## Text

11 All. Gautam Saroj & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
197
(2020)11ILR A197
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2020

BEFORE

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

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 507 of 2020

Gautam Saroj & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mohd. Aqueel Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey

Civil Law - The Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act- Section 6(a) - The
minor's welfare, without exception, has
always been regarded as a matter of
paramount
consideration
when
the
question
is
about
appointment
or
declaration of a guardian or the custody of
a minor inter se natural guardians.

It is settled law that while deciding the custody
of a minor, the consideration of the welfare of
the minor is of paramount importance.

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890-
Section 17(2) - It is true that in situations
where a natural guardian like a father or
the mother is facing criminal trial for the
other's murder or unnatural death, as is
the case here, Courts have been generally
reluctant to entrust custody to such
parents, unless they are acquitted and
come out clean. This, however, is not an
inflexible rule that the moment a parent is
charged with a homicidal crime relating to
the other's death, he/she is to be deprived
of his/her children's custody. The Court
must consider the circumstances of the
crime, not with a view to pronounce upon
guilt or otherwise, but to broadly gauge
whether indeed the circumstances are
such that the minor's custody cannot be
trusted in the hands of the surviving
spouse.

It is not an inflexible rule that where one of the
parent is charged with the homicidal death of
the other, he would be deprived of the custody
of the child.

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890-
Section 17(2) -The father's conduct is not
apparently so blameworthy as may disentitle him to the child's custody, ipso
facto- The added circumstance that the
father is taking care of his other child,
who is the minor's sister and younger to
her - There is no complaint by the 4th
respondent about the other child's welfare
being, in any manner, not ensured with
the father.

In the facts of the case, the character and
conduct of the father, though allegedly involved
i the homicidal death of his wife, is not such
that could disentitle him from the custody of the
child moreso when the father is taking care of
the other child without any complaint.

Habeas Corpus petition allowed.
 (Para 18, 21, 25, 26) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

Nil Ratan Kundu & anr. Vs Abhijit Kundu, (2008)
9 SCC 413

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This petition for a writ of habeas
corpus has been effectively brought by the
first petitioner, Gautam Saroj praying that
the second petitioner, Garima, his minor
daughter may be ordered to be produced
from the custody of Ganesh Prasad,
respondent no. 4, the minor's grandfather
(maternal) and set at liberty in the manner
that her care and custody be entrusted to
Gautam Saroj.

2. This petition was admitted to
hearing on 12.10.2020 and a rule nisi
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
returnable on 21.10.2020, was issued. In
compliance with the rule, Mr. Manoj
Kumar Pandey, Advocate appeared for
respondent no. 4. He has chosen not to file
a counter affidavit on behalf of the said
respondent.
This
Court,
accordingly,
proceeds to hear the matter.

3. During the hearing, the Court has
spoken
to
the
minor's
grandfather
(maternal), Ganesh Prasad, respondent no.
4 and the minor's father, Gautam Saroj. The
Court has also spoken to the minor,
Garima, who is aged three years and a half.
She does not attend school yet. The Court
has interacted with the child mindful of her
tender years. She seems to be a bright child
but too young to express an intelligent
choice about her guardian or the person in
whose custody she would like to be.

4. This Court, while speaking to the
minor's father on one hand and to her
grandfather (maternal) on the other, has
tried
to
ascertain
their
respective
circumstances, their relations inter se, the
circumstances under which the minor's
mother met an unnatural death - all to the
end of determining in whose custody the
welfare of the minor would be best secured.

5. Heard Mr. Mohd. Aqeel Khan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for
respondent no. 4 and Mr. Gyan Prakash
Singh, learned State Law Officer appearing
for the State.

6. The broadly undisputed facts are
that marriage of Rachna Devi d/o Ganesh
Prasad was solemnized with Gautam Saroj
on 05.03.2016, according to Hindu rites.
Two daughters were born to the couple, to
wit, Garima, now aged about three years
and a half and Karishma, aged about two
years. Gautam Saroj says that his wife
Rachna Devi met with an accident by fire
on 09.04.2019, while she was cooking
food. Gautam Saroj also says that he took
his injured wife to the hospital for
treatment. She died during treatment at the
hospital on 09.04.2019. Ganesh Prasad,
respondent no. 4, lodged a first information
report on 14.04.2019 against Gautam Saroj,
the first petitioner and other members of his
family, giving rise to Case Crime No. 253
of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B
I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S. Barra,
District Kanpur Nagar. It appears that the
police
investigated
the
matter
and
submitted a final report dated 09.05.2019,
on 30.05.2019, exculpating all the accused,
including Gautam Saroj.

7. A reading of the Final Report, that
is on record, shows that the conclusion to
exculpate Gautam Saroj and the other
accused was reached by the police, bearing
in mind a dying declaration of the
deceased, which, in the opinion of the
police, did not show that the husband or the
in-laws were, in any manner, involved in
the occurrence that was a pure and simple
accident. Gautam Saroj has very candidly
stated and brought on record a xerox copy
of the final report and said that though he
was exculpated by the police, the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence against him on the basis of the said
report vide order dated 25.10.2019, passed
in Misc. Case No. 5409 of 2019. Gautam
Saroj has, thus, been summoned to stand
his trial in the case. It is, however, added
that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of
the offence for no good reason.

8. It is pointed out that on the day that
the police filed a final report in the case,
that is to say, July the 30th, 2019, Ganesh
Prasad took away the minor, Garima
11 All. Gautam Saroj & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
199
illegally from the custody of her father
Gautam Saroj and refused to send her back.
Gautam Saroj moved an application before
the Station House Officer, P.S. Barra,
District Kanpur Nagar on 30.07.2019
regarding this incident, which is said to
have taken place at about ten minutes past
seven o'clock in the evening hours. Once
the police did not take any action in the
matter, Gautam Saroj moved the Special
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on
19.08.2019, invoking the provisions of
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He prayed to the
Magistrate that the police be ordered to
register and investigate the case. A copy of
the said application is on record as
Annexure No. 4, which discloses the details
of the incident and also the fact that the
Senior Superintendent of Police too, was
moved through a written application to
order registration of a case against the 4th
respondent.

9. It appears that the Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate called for a report from
the police station. The police submitted a
report dated 16.10.2019, that the minor
Garima was indeed taken away by Ganesh
Prasad and that now he was ready to hand
over the child back to her father, Gautam
Saroj. The police, however, opined that the
minor was taken away in the background of
deep hostilities between parties after the
minor's mother died, but there was no
evidence of any act of kidnapping.

10. The Court has perused the
aforesaid police report submitted to the
Magistrate. The Magistrate, on the basis of
the police report, proceeded to reject the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
That order of the Magistrate is also on
record. It is claimed by Gautam Saroj that it
was after rejection of his application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that Ganesh Prasad
refused to send Garima back to Saroj.
Instead, he demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in
lieu of that favour.

11. This Court must remark at once
that the allegation regarding Ganesh
Prasad, demanding a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, in
lieu of repatriating his maternal grand
daughter to her father's home, appears to be
an exaggeration stemming from the mutual
bitterness that parties suffer from, under the
unfortunate circumstances that they are
placed in.

12. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner has emphasized the fact that the
father is the natural guardian of a minor
under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956 and in his
presence, the maternal grandfather has no
right to hold the child's custody. He submits
that the welfare of the minor too, would be
better secured with the father than with the
grandfather (maternal). It is pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the father already has the care and custody
of his other daughter, much younger to the
detenue, who is well adapted in the father's
home. The family are already a victim of
misfortune, where the children have lost
their mother. It is urged that the two sisters,
staying together, would have a better effect
on the overall development of both the
young children. It is also emphasized that
the father has means enough to maintain
both his daughters and the necessary
inclination to groom them into useful
citizens.

13. It is re-emphasized by Mr. Khan
that the father, being the natural guardian
under the statute, that legislative command
cannot be ignored, discounted or trifled
with. According to him, children's interest
are normally presumed to be best taken
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
care of by their parents. Where one of them
is lost, the other is to be regarded as best
suited to bring up his/her minor children.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized that the criminal prosecution
that has been brought against Gautam Saroj
and his family members, is not to be
regarded as a disentitling factor, once the
totality of circumstances are considered.
On behalf of Gautam Saroj, it is urged that
the minor's welfare would be best ensured
with her father and that it would be ensured
far better than it would be with the
grandfather.

14. Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the 4th respondent has
vociferously disputed Gautam Saroj's case.
Mr. Pandey submits that there is material
on record to show that Garima was home
alone after the FIR was lodged by the 4th
respondent against Saroj and his family.
Finding his granddaughter alone, Ganesh
Prasad had brought her along and is taking
care of her along with his wife. It is urged
that Gautam Saroj is facing a serious
criminal charge about doing his wife to
death. Unless acquitted, he is not a person
fit to take care of the child. It is emphasized
by Mr. Pandey that a natural guardian, who
is facing trial on a criminal charge, is most
unsuitable to be entrusted with the minor's
care
and
custody.
Learned
counsel
emphasizes that the welfare of the minor
has many facets. Prime, according to
learned counsel, is the inculcation of good
moral values. He submits that a man, who
is facing a criminal charge about causing
his wife's death, would do disservice to the
minor's moral grooming.

15. This Court has given a thoughtful
consideration to the rival contentions and
the material on record. The Court has also
borne in mind whatever could be gathered
about the circumstances of the parties visa`-vis the welfare of the minor.

16. The preference of the minor about
who would have her care and custody, in a
delicate relationship between the parties, is
important. But, for that preference to be
taken into account by the Court, the minor
must be, to borrow the phraseology of
Section 17 (3) of the Guardians and Wards
Act, "old enough to form an intelligent
preference". Here, the minor is far below
that age, as this Court has already
remarked.

17. This Court finds from a close
interaction with the father that he is a
Physiotherapist by profession. He holds a
diploma in Physiotherapy and currently
pursuing a course leading to a bachelors
degree at the Himalaya University. He has
earned his diploma from the Roopa
Medical College, Kanpur Nagar. He has
given this Court to understand that he has a
professional income of Rs. 25,000/- per
mensem and pays income tax. He has his
mother, father and a sister at home. Besides
them, the minor's younger sister, Karishma
is also there. About the circumstances
leading to his wife's death, he told the
Court that he was away to Prayagraj when
the incident happened. The accident was
caused by a leak in the gas cylinder. Saroj
is presently aged 33 years. He has not
remarried. To the Court's question, if he
wishes to remarry, he said that he has not
thought about the matter. The minor's
grandfather, respondent no. 4, Ganesh
Prasad, on the other hand, told the Court
that his daughter was set afire by her
husband and in-laws. He said that he had
lodged an FIR, but the police put in a final
report. He had approached the higher
authorities of the police, but to no avail. He
is employed with the Jal Nigam as a Peon.
11 All. Gautam Saroj & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
201

18. No doubt, the father is the natural
guardian of a minor, and that status is
conferred upon him by Section 6(a) of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, but
so far as the question of choice about a
guardian for the minor is concerned, or so
to speak, his/her custody is concerned, the
statute, last mentioned, makes provision
under Section 13 that mandates that the
welfare of a minor in the matter of
appointment and declaration of his/her
guardian is of paramount importance. The
minor's welfare, without exception, has
always been regarded as a matter of
paramount consideration when the question
is about appointment or declaration of a
guardian or the custody of a minor inter se
natural guardians. The welfare is to be
tested on various parameters. Some of
them, but not all, are spelt out by Section
17(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890. These are, the minor's age, sex and
religion. The proposed guardian's character
and capacity, besides his nearness of kin to
the minor, are also envisaged. The wishes,
if any, of a deceased parent and any
existing or previous relations of the
proposed guardian with the minor or his
property are also to be taken into account.
It is only in cases where the minor is old
enough to express an intelligent preference
that his/her choice also gains importance.
But, these criteria are not exhaustive. These
serve as broad guidance in judging subtler
aspects of human relationship and the
minor's interest. What is not lost sight of is
the principle that a custody dispute relating
to a minor is not about the right which the
guardian may have under the law. It is
about the welfare of the minor and where it
would be best secured.

19. The necessary wherewithal to
fund the minor's basic needs about food,
shelter and clothing would, of course,
require the Court to ensure that the person
who asks for the minor's custody, has it.
The guardian's education and his ability to
provide the minor with reasonably good
education would be of great importance.
The ability to provide good education does
not come from mere financial capacity to
fund education. The Court has to bear in
mind the fact whether the guardian
himself/herself is educated enough to guide
the minor's education so that his formal
education
in
school
may
become
meaningful and come to fruition. Above all,
it would be instilling in the minor good
human values without which physical
comforts of life and the mental training
imparted through education would be of
little consequence.

20. This Court has little doubt that the
father has the necessary wherewithal to
provide for the minor. He also has
seemingly
better
education
than
the
grandfather. The only serious issue, that has
been debated with much vehemence before
this Court, is about the minor's moral
training and development, which the
learned counsel for the 4th respondent says,
would suffer in the hands of a father who is
facing trial for the murder of the minor's
mother, his wife.

21. It is true that in situations where a
natural guardian like a father or the mother
is facing criminal trial for the other's
murder or unnatural death, as is the case
here, Courts have been generally reluctant
to entrust custody to such parents, unless
they are acquitted and come out clean. The
principle is that a person whose moral
uprightness is under a cloud of doubt,
ought not to be trusted with a child's moral
grooming. This, however, is not an
inflexible rule that the moment a parent is
charged with a homicidal crime relating to
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the other's death, he/she is to be deprived of
his/her children's custody. What is required
is that the Court must consider the
circumstances of the crime, not with a view
to pronounce upon guilt or otherwise, but
to broadly gauge whether indeed the
circumstances are such that the minor's
custody cannot be trusted in the hands of
the surviving spouse.

22. In Nil Ratan Kundu and
Another vs. Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (9) SCC
413, dealing with the issue relating to
custody between the minor's grand parents
(maternal) and his father, where the mother
had become the victim of an unnatural
death in her matrimonial home, and the
husband was facing trial for offences under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. etc., it was
held by their Lordships of the Supreme
Court thus:

62. Now, it has come in evidence
that after the death of Mithu (mother of
Antariksh) and lodging of first information
report by her father against Abhijit (father
of Antariksh) and his mother (paternal
grandmother of Antariksh), Abhijit was
arrested by the police. It was also stated by
Nil Ratan Kundu (father of Mithu) that
mother
of
accused
Abhijit
(paternal
grandmother of Antariksh) absconded and
Antariksh was found sick from the house of
Abhijit.

63. In our considered opinion, on
the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, both the courts were duty-bound to
consider
the
allegations
against
the
respondent herein and pendency of the
criminal case for an offence punishable
under Section 498-A IPC. One of the
matters which is required to be considered
by a court of law is the "character" of the
proposed guardian. In Kirtikumar [(1992) 3
SCC 573 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 778] , this
Court, almost in similar circumstances,
where the father was facing the charge
under Section 498-A IPC, did not grant
custody of two minor children to the father
and allowed them to remain with the
maternal uncle.

64. Thus, a complaint against the
father alleging and attributing the death of
the mother, and a case under Section 498-A
IPC is indeed a relevant factor and a court
of law must address the said circumstance
while deciding the custody of the minor in
favour of such a person. To us, it is no
answer to state that in case the father is
convicted, it is open to the maternal
grandparents to make an appropriate
application for change of custody. Even at
this stage, the said fact ought to have been
considered and an appropriate order ought
to have been passed.

23. A reading of their Lordships
decision in Nil Ratan Kundu (supra),
particularly on the point in hand, does not
show it to be an inflexible rule laid down
that in all cases where one parent is facing
a criminal prosecution for the other's
unnatural death, his/her claim to the minor's
custody must, in all cases, be negatived. It
has been emphasized as an important
factor, which the Court must consider
before deciding upon what order about
custody ought to be made. In Nil Ratan
Kundu (supra), the approach of the lower
courts who said that in case the father were
convicted, it would be open to the maternal
grandparents to claim the minor's custody,
was held to be flawed.

24. To the understanding of this
Court, what would make the case of one
natural guardian, facing charges for the
unnatural death of his/her spouse, different
from the other, would be his/her conduct
and the circumstances in which he/she has
11 All. Gautam Saroj & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
203
come to be arraigned. Else, it would not
have been held by their Lordships that the
pendency of a criminal case under Section
498-A I.P.C. etc. would be a relevant factor,
which the Court must address while
deciding a minor's custody. It would have
been laid down as an inflexible rule that an
arraigned parent ought not to be entrusted
with the minor's custody till he/she comes
out clean with a judgment of honorable
acquittal. This is not the rule laid down, to
this Court's understanding, in Nil Ratan
Kundu (supra). It is on account of this
feature of the principle in Nil Ratan
Kundu (supra) that the circumstances of
each case ought to be considered by the
Court whenever the issue about the custody
of a minor being entrusted to a parent, who
is facing charges about the death of the
other, arises.

25. In Nil Ratan Kundu (supra),
their Lordships noticed the facts which
show that upon death of the minor's mother,
the husband was arrested by the police.
Here, the facts show that the FIR did not
lead to any immediate arrest. Rather, a
dying declaration of the deceased was
recorded, exculpating the husband and her
in-laws. It is on the basis of the said dying
declaration that a final report was filed. It is
quite another matter that the Magistrate, on
the basis of some material in the case diary,
found it a case where the final report
recommending closure of proceedings,
ought to be rejected. It does show, however,
but limited to judge the father's suitability
to hold the minor's custody, that the father's
conduct is not apparently so blameworthy
as may dis-entitle him to the child's
custody, ipso facto. There is also the added
circumstance that Gautam Saroj is taking
care of his other child, who is the minor's
sister and younger to her. There is no
complaint by the 4th respondent about the
other child's welfare being, in any manner,
not ensured with the father. The 4th
respondent has not asked for the other
minor's custody. This would indicate that
the 4th respondent too, does not altogether
distrust his son-in-law.

26. On the other hand, the fact cannot
be lost sight of that, in case, the minor and
her younger sister are separated, by being
placed in two different families, it might
adversely affect the children's development
together. The two minors are not just
siblings, but very close in their years. They
would be happier together than separated. It
hardly need be gainsaid that a happy and
congenial atmosphere is also of great
importance in ensuring a happy and
satisfied childhood; in turn, it is a harbinger
to a balanced and well-groomed youth. The
two minors, torn apart, might suffer more
psychologically than if they were placed
together in the same family. Also, the father
has presently not remarried. The possibility
that he may, cannot be ruled out. But it is a
possibility and no more. The minors also
have two paternal grandparents at home,
besides each others company, which would
develop into a strong bond at the age that
they are. In the circumstances, the custody
that the father asks for, prima facie,
certainly promises a better welfare for the
minor detenue than what would obtain in
the 4th respondent's hand.

27. At the same time, this Court
makes it clear that a custody dispute
decided in a habeas corpus matter is a
summary determination. The party, in
whose favour this Court has not found, that
is to say the 4th respondent, would be at
liberty to establish a superior claim to
custody through regular proceedings taken
before the Court of competent jurisdiction
under the Guardians and Wards Act. This
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tentativeness about the determination made
here proceeds on the nature of the
jurisdiction that is exercised primarily on
limited evidence, founded on affidavits and
some interaction. A final determination,
therefore, ought to be left to the Court of
competent jurisdiction, where intricate
questions on facts can be better gone into,
if the aggrieved party chooses to avail that
remedy.

28. It is made clear, in case, the 4th
respondent moves the Court of competent
jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards
Act through an appropriate petition asking
for the minor's custody, or may be the
custody of both minors involved here, it
will be open to that Court to decide his
claim vis-a-vis the first petitioner, strictly in
accordance with law and the evidence led,
without being influenced by anything said
in this judgment.

29. In the result, this habeas corpus
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
rule nisi made is absolute. The minor,
Garima, is set at liberty in the manner that
her custody shall be handed over to her
father, Gautam Saroj, who is present in
Court. The father, Gautam Saroj, the minor,
Garima
and
the
minor's
grandfather
(maternal) are all present in Court. The 4th
respondent, Ganesh Prasad, has handed
over the minor's custody to Gautam Saroj
in Court.

30.

However,
looking
to
the
relationship between parties and the fact
that the 4th respondent, Ganesh Prasad is
the minor's grandfather (maternal), he is
found entitled to meet and interact with the
minor. It is ordered that the first petitioner,
Gautam Saroj shall permit Ganesh Prasad
to meet the minor, Garima once a month,
on the second Sunday between 10:00 a.m.
to 01:00 p.m. at Gautam Saroj's residence.
If for some reason, the aforesaid schedule
cannot be adhered to, it shall be mutually
determined between the parties, but not so
as to infringe the minimum monthly
meeting
once
for
the
grandfather
(maternal). It is further directed that during
the grandfather's meetings with the minor,
Gautam Saroj and his family members shall
extend due courtesy to Ganesh Prasad and
facilitate the meetings.

31. Let this order be communicated to
the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar
and the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Kanpur Dehat by the Joint Registrar
(compliance). The learned District Judge
and the Senior Superintendent of Police
shall act in aid of this order.
----------
(2020)11ILR A204
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2020

BEFORE

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

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 2805 of 2018

Km. Vaibhavi Sharma (Minor) & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Gulab Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Anil Tiwari, Sri Sharda Prasad
Mishra

Constitution of India- Article 226- Habeas
Corpus Writ Petition- Maintainability of- It
is only in cases where the question of
welfare of the minor is enmeshed in
complicated detail of facts and evidence