# Vivan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 57
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-15
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 919 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vivan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49972
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article
226, - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
304-B, 306, 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 -
Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 -
Section - 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4)3), 7, 17(1),
17(2),
17(3),
-
Hindu
Minority
and
Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 4, 6
& 13 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section
- 26, - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section - 3/4, - Domestic Violence Act,
2005- Section 12 - Writ of Habeas Corpus -
father seeking custody of his Children being
natural Guardian - Corpus are minor are aged
about 8 years and 3 years lying in custody of
their maternal grandparents - elder of them has
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expressed his unequivocal desire to reside with
his father and second corpus could not identify
his father as he is too young - father of the
corpuses facing criminal charges of abatement
of commission of suicide of his wife the mother
of children and he is on the bail - further, family
atmosphere of the father is not conducive to
their health growth and polluted - on the other
hand, maternal grandfather maintained the child
with utmost love and affection - it is settled law
that, it is not the 'negative test' that the father
is not 'unfit' or disqualified to have custody of
his son/daughter is relevant but the 'positive
test' that such custody would be in the welfare
of the minor - hence, this court does not find
good ground to make the rule nisi absolute -
accordingly, discharged - petition fails and
stands dismissed. (Para - 9, 21, 23)'

Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Vivan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
57
protection of life and personal liberty,
however, it has clearly provided that no
person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty "except according to
procedure established by law".

38. In the present case, the stand taken
by the State while raising preliminary
objection to the present petition was that
the petitioners are in Child Protection
Home, therefore, even if at this stage, it is
not clear as to how the petitioners have
reached Child Protection Home, one thing
is clear that administration of criminal
justice is operating, which is the procedure
established by law (although with this stand
of the State, Full Bench decision in Rachna
(supra) would cover the issue involved,
including preliminary objection). It is
clearly reflected from the record that the
petitioners have already invoked provisions
of Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the competent
court of law i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate
having jurisdiction over the matters. Thus,
they have availed the effective statutory
remedy and thus, have put the criminal
administration of justice into motion and as
per settled law writ of habeas corpus cannot
be issued to set the same at knot.

39. To sum up, it can be said that the
petitioners have already invoked provisions
of Section 97 Cr.P.C., hence administration
of criminal justice has already come into
play and the same cannot be set at knot by
simultaneously
invoking
extra-ordinary
remedy
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, which may be a
remedy of right but as per settled law
cannot be issued as a matter of course.
Moreover, when corpus are in Child
Protection Home, the present writ petition
would not be maintainable as per the law
settled by Full Bench decision in Rachna
(supra).

40. Consequently, in view of the
discussions made hereinabove preliminary
objection raised by the State that the
present petition is not maintainable as the
petitioners have already invoked provisions
of Section 97 Cr.P.C. and have approached
the competent court is upheld.

41.
Present
petition,
accordingly,
stands dismissed as not maintainable.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 57
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 919 of 2022

Vivan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Keshari, Sri Beerendra
Singh Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Shri Krishan Yadav

Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article
226, - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
304-B, 306, 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 -
Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 -
Section - 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4)3), 7, 17(1),
17(2),
17(3),
-
Hindu
Minority
and
Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 4, 6
& 13 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section
- 26, - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section - 3/4, - Domestic Violence Act,
2005- Section 12 - Writ of Habeas Corpus -
father seeking custody of his Children being
natural Guardian - Corpus are minor are aged
about 8 years and 3 years lying in custody of
their maternal grandparents - elder of them has
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expressed his unequivocal desire to reside with
his father and second corpus could not identify
his father as he is too young - father of the
corpuses facing criminal charges of abatement
of commission of suicide of his wife the mother
of children and he is on the bail - further, family
atmosphere of the father is not conducive to
their health growth and polluted - on the other
hand, maternal grandfather maintained the child
with utmost love and affection - it is settled law
that, it is not the 'negative test' that the father
is not 'unfit' or disqualified to have custody of
his son/daughter is relevant but the 'positive
test' that such custody would be in the welfare
of the minor - hence, this court does not find
good ground to make the rule nisi absolute -
accordingly, discharged - petition fails and
stands dismissed. (Para - 9, 21, 23)'

Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Saraswatibai Shripad Ved Vs Shripad Vasanji
Ved, AIR 1941 Bom 103,

3. Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs Harbax Singh
Sandhu, (1986) 3 SCC 698,

4. Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli,
(2008) 7 SCC 673,

5. Rosy Jacob Vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal,
1973(1) SCC 840,

6.
Kirtikumar
Maheshankar
Joshi
Vs
Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi, (1992) 3 SCC
573.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for the private
respondents and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Corpus Vivan aged around 8 years
and Divyansh aged around 3 years have
been produced before this Court by
respondent nos. 4 to 7.

Corpus Vivan is identified his father
Vijay Vikram, deponent in present petition.
The second corpus Divyansh could not
identify his father as he is too young. Corpus
Vivan stated that he intends to reside with her
Mausi and maternal grand parents. He
expressed his dis-inclination to go or live
with his father.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that children who are corpus in
present case are sons of deponent, who are
too younger to decide their future. They are
brainwashed by their maternal grandfather
and Mausi (aunt). In-laws of deponent had
taken away his both sons along with them
after death of his wife Smt. Sweta, who died
on 29.4.2022 and they are residing with their
maternal grandparents for more than nine
months and they have been produced by them
who are impleaded as respondents in present
case. Deponent operates a GST Seva Kendra.
Deponent resides with his father who is
retired Bank Manager and the deponent is
although an accused in a Case Crime No. 89
of 2022 lodged on 1.5.2022 under Section
306 IPC on account of alleged suicidal death
of his wife, however, he is enlarged on bail.
He undertakes to ensure welfare of the
children if they are granted in his custody.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
private
respondents
submitted
that
atmosphere of the house of deponent is
polluted. His own mother resides separately
from his father. Private respondents are
well educated people. Respondent no. 7,
aunt (Mausi), of the corpus is a Bank
employee in Bank of Baroda and all the
respondents are taking due care of the
corpus. They are receiving appropriate
education in their supervision.
4 All. Vivan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
59

5. Learned counsel for the respondents
placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nil Ratan Kundu and
Another Vs. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC
413 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while
interpreting provisions of Section 17(1),
(2), (3), 7 and 4(1), 4(2) and (3) of
Guardianship and Wards Act as well as
Sections 2, 4, 6 and 13 of Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Section 26
of Hindu Marriage Act held that in
determining the question as to who should
be given the custody of minor child, the
paramount consideration is the welfare of
the child and not the rights of the parents
under statute for the time being in force.
The legal position in India follows the
doctrine
laid
down
in
English
and
American Law. In that case A was the son
of the respondent. Allegedly, A' s mother,
M had been continuously tortured by the
respondent for bringing more dowry from
her parents, the appellants here. On day M
was brutally assaulted by the respondent
and his mother which resulted in her death.
The appellants herein lodged F.I.R. against
the respondent and his mother under
Sections
498-A
and
304
IPC.
The
respondent was consequently arrested. A,
who at that time was only five years old,
was found in sick condition at the
respondent's residence. His custody was
then handed over to the appellants. The
appellants maintained the child with utmost
love and affection and got him admitted to
a well-reputed school.

6. During the pendency of the criminal
case, the respondent was enlarged on bail.
He then filed an application under the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking
custody of A. The appellants opposed that
application. The trial court allowed the
application and held that the respondent
was the natural guardian of A and the
present and future of A would be better
secured in the custody of the respondent.
Accordingly, it directed the custody of A to
be "immediately" given to the respondent.
This order was upheld by the High Court.
The appellants then filed the present appeal
by special leave.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the
appeal filed by mother of the child and
observed that the trial court's order to hand
over minor to such guardian (father)
immediately and High Court's order to do
so within 24 hours positively was not
proper on application of the father of the
child which was opposed by his maternal
grandparents with whom child was lying.

8. In deciding a difficult and complex
question as to custody of minor, a Court of
law should keep in mind relevant statutes
and the rights flowing therefrom. But such
cases
cannot
be
decided
solely
by
interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane
problem and is required to be solved with
human touch. A Court while dealing with
custody cases, is neither bound by statutes
nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure
nor by precedents. In selecting proper
guardian of a minor, the paramount
consideration should be the welfare and
well-being of the child. In selecting a
guardian, the Court is exercising parens
patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay
bound, to give due weight to a child's
ordinary comfort, contentment, health,
education, intellectual development and
favourable surroundings. But over and
above physical comforts, moral and ethical
values cannot be ignored. They are equally,
or we may say, even more important,
essential and indispensable considerations.
If the minor is old enough to form an
intelligent preference or judgment, the
Court must consider such preference as
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
well, though the final decision should rest
with the Court as to what is conducive to
the welfare of the minor.

9.
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
further
observed that it is not the negative test' that
the father is not `unfit' or disqualified to
have custody of his son/daughter is relevant
but the `positive test' that such custody
would be in the welfare of the minor which
is material and it is on that basis that the
Court should exercise the power to grant or
refuse custody of minor in favour of father,
mother or any other guardian.

10. As regard the trial court's direction
to hand over the custody of the child
"immediately" by removing him from the
custody of his maternal grandparents and
the High Court's order to hand over the
child to his father within twenty-four hours
positively, it has to be held, that a child is
not "property" or "commodity". The issues
relating to custody of minors and tenderaged children have to be handled with love,
affection, sentiments and by applying
human touch to the problem.

11.
Hon'ble Apex
Court
further
observed that examination of the child
helps the court in performing its onerous
duty in exercising discretionary jurisdiction
and in deciding the delicate issue of
custody of a tender-aged group child.
Moreover, final decision rests with the
court which is bound to consider all
questions
to
make
appropriate
order
keeping in view the welfare of the child.
Normally, therefore, in custody cases,
wishes of the minor should be ascertained
by the Court before deciding as to whom
custody should be given. In the present
case trial court ought to have ascertained
the wishes of the child as to with whom he
wanted to stay. The child was called in the
chamber of judges deciding the present
case. He admitted to be quite intelligent.
When asked whether he wanted to go to his
father and stay with him, he unequivocally
refused to go with him or to stay with him.
He also stated that that he was very happy
with maternal grand parents and would like
to continue to stay with them. It has,
therefore, to be held that in would not be
proper on the facts and circumstances to
give custody of the child to his father, the
respondent herein.

12. In above case also mother of the
child died unfortunate death and the father
of the child was arrested in a case lodged
by parents of the deceased wife under
Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC
as she was repeatedly brutally assaulted by
her husband and his mother, and after death
of his wife and after death of mother of
corpus, custody of child was handed over
to maternal grandparents. At that time, he
was only of five years. It was his maternal
grandfather,
appellant
no.
1,
who
maintained the child with utmost love and
affection. He was imparted education in a
reputed college in Kolkata.

13. Hon'ble Apex Court in above case
cited various Authorities in English and
American Law held that ordinarily basis for
issuance of writ of habeas corpus is an
illegal detention; but in the case of such a
writ issued out for the detention of a child,
the law is concerned not so much with the
illegality of the detention as with the
welfare of the child. The legal position in
India follows the this doctrine. There are
various statutes which gives legislative
recognition to these well established
principles. Section 4 of the Guardian and
Wards Act defines "minor" as a person who
had not attained the age of majority.
"Guardian means a person having care of
4 All. Vivan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
61
the person for a minor or of his property, or
of both his person and property." "Ward" is
defined as a minor from whose person or
property or both, there is a guardian.

14. Hon'ble Apex Court further
reproduced
statutory
provisions
in
paragraph nos. 31, 32, 35, 36, 37 which are
reproduced as under"-

31. Chapter II (Sections 5 to 19)
relates to appointment and declaration of
guardians. Section 7 deals with `power of
the Court to make order as to guardianship'
and reads as under:

7. Power of the Court to make
order as to guardianship.-(1) Where the
Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of
a minor that an order should be made--

(a) appointing a guardian of his
person or property, or both, or

(b) declaring a person to be such
a guardian, the Court may make an order
accordingly.

(2) An order under this section
shall imply the removal of any guardian
who has not been appointed by will or
other instrument or appointed or declared
by the Court.

(3) Where a guardian has been
appointed by will or other instrument or
appointed or declared by the Court, an
order under this section appointing or
declaring another person to be guardian in
his stead shall not be made until the powers
of the guardian appointed or declared as
aforesaid have ceased under the provisions
of this Act.

32.
Section
8
of
the
Act
enumerates persons entitled to apply for an
order as to guardianship. Section 9
empowers the Court having jurisdiction to
entertain an application for guardianship.
Sections 10 to 16 deal with procedure and
powers of Court. Section 17 is another
material provision and may be reproduced;

17. Matters to be considered by
the Court in appointing guardian.-(1) In
appointing or declaring the guardian of a
minor, the Court shall, subject to the
provisions of this section, be guided by
what, consistently with the law to which the
minor
is
subject,
appears
in
the
circumstances to be for the welfare of the
minor.

(2) In considering what will be
for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall
have regard to the age, sex and religion of
the minor, the character and capacity of the
proposed guardian and his nearness of kin
to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a
deceased parent, and any existing or
previous relations of the proposed guardian
with the minor or his property.

(3) If the minor is old enough to
form an intelligent preference, the Court
may consider that preference.

 * * * * *

(5) The Court shall not appoint or
declare any person to be a guardian
against his will.

 (emphasis supplied)

35.
Hindu
Minority
and
Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as "1956 Act") is another equally
important statute relating to minority and
guardianship among Hindus. Section 4
defines "minor" as a person who has not
completed the age of eighteen years.
"Guardian" means a person having the care
of the person of a minor or of his property or
of both his persons and property, and inter
alia includes a natural guardian. Section 2 of
the Act declares that the provisions of the Act
shall be in addition to, and not in derogation
of 1890 Act.

36. Section 6 enacts as to who
can be said to be a natural guardian. It
reads thus;
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Natural guardians of a Hindu
Minor.

--The natural guardians of a
Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's
person as well as in respect of the minor's
property (excluding his or her undivided
interest in joint family property), are--

(a) in the case of a boy or an
unmarried girl--the father, and after him,
the mother; provided that the custody of a
minor who has not completed the age of
five years shall ordinarily be with the
mother;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate
boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl-- the
mother, and after her, the father.

(c) in the case of a married girl--
the husband:

Provided that no person shall be
entitled to act as the natural guardian of a
minor under the provisions of this section--

(a) if he has ceased to be a
Hindu, or

(b) if he has completely and
finally renounced the world becoming a
hermit(vanaprastha)or an ascetic(yati or
sanyasi).

Explanation.--In this section, the
expressions "father" and "mother" do not
include a step-father and a step-mother.

37. Section 8 enumerates powers
of natural guardian. Section 13 is extremely
important provision and deals with welfare
of a minor. The same may be quoted in
extenso;

13. Welfare of minor to be
paramount consideration.

(1)In
the
appointment
or
declaration of any person as guardian of a
Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the
minor
shall
be
the
paramount
consideration.

(2)No, person shall be entitled to
the guardianship by virtue of the provisions
of this Act or of any law relating to
guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if
the court is of opinion that his or her
guardianship will not be for the welfare of
the minor.

(emphasis supplied)

15. In Saraswatibai Shripad Ved Vs.
Shripad Vasanji Ved, AIR 1941 Bom 103,
the High Court of Bombay stated that it is
not the welfare of the father, nor the
welfare of the mother i.e. paramount
consideration for the Court. It is the welfare
of the minor and of the minor alone which
is the paramount consideration.

16. In Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs.
Harbax Singh Sandhu, (1986) 3 SCC
698, Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section
6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956 consitutes the father as a natural
guardian of a minor son. But that provision
cannot
supersede
the
paramount
consideration as to what is conducive to the
welfare of the minor.

17. In Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs.
Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673,
Hon'ble Apex Curt has held in paragraph
no. 20 as follows:-

20 "The question of welfare of the
minor child has again to be considered in
the background of the relevant facts and
circumstances. Each case has to be decided
on its own facts and other decided cases
can hardly serve as binding precedents
insofar as the factual aspects of the case
are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that
father is presumed by the statutes to be
better suited to look after the welfare of the
child, being normally the working member
and head of the family, yet in each case the
Court has to see primarily to the welfare of
the child in determining the question of his
4 All. Vivan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
63
or her custody. Better financial resources of
either of the parents or
their love for the child may be one of the
relevant considerations but cannot be the
sole determining factor for the custody of
the child. It is here that a heavy duty is cast
on the Court to exercise its judicial
discretion judiciously in the background of
all the relevant facts and circumstances,
bearing in mind the welfare of the child as
the paramount consideration."

18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nil Ratan
Kundu (supra) placeing reliance on Rosy
Jacob Vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal,
1973(1) SCC 840, observed that "we may
only state that a child is not "property" or
"commodity". To repeat issues relating to
custody of minors and tender-aged children
have to be handled with love, affection,
sentiments and by applying human touch to
the problem.

............................................

One of the matters which is
required to be considered by a court of law
is the "character" of the proposed guardian.

20. In Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi
Vs. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi,
(1992) 3 SCC 573, Apex 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, thus a complaint against father
alleging and attributing the death of the mother
under Section 498-A IPC is indeed a relevant
factor and the court of law must address the
said circumstance while deciding the custody
of the minor in favour of such a person.

21. From perusal of material on record
it appears that maternal uncle of the
children Yogesh lodged an F.I.R. against
deponent, father of the corpuses, and his
father under Section 323, 504 IPC on
29.12.2014
at
P.S.
concerned
with
allegation that they had assaulted and
abused the victim Shweta who happens to
be his sister. The deceased wife of the
deponent/petitioner had also lodged a case
under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act in
Etawah in which interim maintenance was
ordered by competent court to the wife of
the deponent. She had also lodged an F.I.R.
against her husband and in-laws on
5.7.2015 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 and Section 3/4 D.P. Act with
allegation of demand of dowry and
subjecting her to matrimonial cruelty
against named accused persons at P.S.
Diviyapura, District Auraiya. Unfortunately
she died unnatural death on 29.4.2022 as
alleged, by consuming some poisonous
substance and her cremation took place on
30.4.2022. After death of the mother of the
corpuses, her father Suresh Chandra Yadav
lodged an F.I.R. on 1.5.2022 vide crime no.
89 of 2022 under Section 306 IPC against
deponent, father of the corpuses, and his
family
members
with
allegation
of
subjecting the deceased to matrimonial
cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry and her continuous
torture physically and mentally committed
by them and now the deponent, father of
the corpuses, is enlarged on bail in that case
under Section 306 IPC, however, he has
been alleged to have abetted the mother of
the corpuses to commit suicide, who
happened to be his wife thus, relations of
husband and wife remained strained just
after some time of their marriage and
ultimately she allegedly committed suicide.
The corpus Vivan aged around 8 years and
Divyansh aged around 3 years respectively
have appeared before this Court today.
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vivan categorically stated that he intends to
reside with her maternal grandparents and her
mausi (aunt). He expressed his disinclination
to go or live with his father, who has filed the
present petition on their behalf. The second
corpus Divyansh could not identify his father
as he is too young and therefore his desire
could not be elicited. It is submitted on behalf
of private respondents, maternal grandparents
and mausi (aunt) of the corpuses that family
atmosphere of the deponent, father of the
corpuses, is not conducive to their health
growth and polluted. His own mother resides
separately
from
his
father.
Private
respondents
are
well
educated
and
resourceful person and are able to take proper
and due care of the children as they are lying
with them, to ensure over all development. In
counter affidavit, bona fide certificate has
been filed which is issued by the Principal of
Tapasthali Public School, Mainpuri which
bears dated 10.10.2022 in which it is stated
that Vivan s/o Vijay Vikram Singh is a
student of class-3 in his school. He was
admitted to the school by his maternal
grandfather on 6.7.2022. The maternal
grandfather of the child is also bearing all the
academic expenses of the child and they are
ready to carry on nurturing of both the
children of their deceased's daughter.

22. This Court in habeas corpus writ
petition no. 389 of 2020 (Master Aryan and
Another) decided on 1.3.2021 wherein it was
held that in that case the child appeared a bright
and intelligent on his protection before the
Court. He expressed his feelings of animosity
feelings for his mother who was facing a charge
about her husband's death in relation to which
she was subjected to trial and there was a
possibility, remote or not so remote, that she
might be convicted and sentenced on the charge
relating to her husband's (minors' father)
murder. If that were to happen while minors are
staying with her it would create trauma to the
minors, to know that their mother, with whom
they have bonded and are living, stands
convicted of the father's murder and on that
count, this Court dismissed habeas corpus
petition filed by the mother of the children who
were residing with their parental uncle and aunt
after death of their father.

23. Considering rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, facts and
attending circumstances of the case and the
judicial authorities of the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as this Court cited above and
keeping in view the paramount interest of
the welfare of the children who are presently
lying
in
custody
of
their
maternal
grandparents and elder of them has
expressed his unequivocal desire to reside
with them and peculiar facts of the case that
father had sought custody of the child in
present habeas corpus petition who is facing
charge of abatement of commission of
suicide of his wife, the mother of the
children, this Court does not find good
ground to make the rule nisi absolute. It is
accordingly, discharged.

24. In the result, this petition fails and
stands dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 64
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 1396 of 2023

Anupma Sinha ...Petitioner
Versus
Real
Estate
Regulatory
Authority,
Rajya Niyojan Sansthan, Lko. U.P. &
Anr.
 ...Respondents