Master Rishabh Krishna Thru. His Natural Guardian (Father) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary , Home Lko And 4

Shri Shishir Pradhan, Advocate files his 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no.4, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the deponent is not father of the detenues. The detenues are the sons of respondent no.4 and younger brother of petitioner no.3 and First Information Report under Section 376 IPC has also been lodged against the petitioner no.3, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise the petitioner No.3 has an alternative and statutory remedy under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for custody of children as they are with their mother and the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned A.G.A. also, on the basis of instructions, submits that the petitioner no.3 is not father of the petitioners no.1 and 2 and the petitioner no.1 and 2 are residing with their mother Smt.

Umapal. He also submits that the First Information Report has been lodged by her against petitioner no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the First Information Report has been lodged against petitioner no.3 by the respondent no.4, in which she has disputed the parentage of the petitioners' no.1 and 2. However he submits that petitioner no.3 has been granted Anticipatory Bail in the said First Information Report. He further submits that on a complaint of the petitioner no.3 for registering the First Information Report a report was submitted by the Incharge Inspector, Police Station Sareni, District-Raebareli disclosing that the petitioner no.3 has married to respondent no.4 and thereafter he went on his duties and two children were born out of wedlock of the petitioner no.3 and respondent no.4 and after going on duty the respondent no.4 had developed the affair with one Gyanendra Pal son of Kandhai, Resident of Mirzapur, Police Station-Kheero, District-Raebareli, on account of which the family dispute arose between them.

Respondent no.4 has also married to Gyanendra and residing with him along with her two children. It has further been stated in the report that other allegations of the petitioner no.3 are false and wrong. In view of above there are disputed questions of fact and even the parentage of the petitioner no.1 and 2 is also disputed on the ground that they are not sons of the petitioner no.3 and learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.4 has relations with some other person, namely, Gyanendra Pal. Even otherwise the petitioner has an alternative and statutory remedy under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, under which the disputed questions of fact can be decided in the regular proceedings after detailed evidence and admittedly the custody of petitioner nos.1 and 2 is with their mother i.e. the respondent no.4, therefore, the custody can not be said to be unlawful. Thus this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. . .................. .......................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Banswar RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench