Master Arnav Kharbanda Thru Father Bheeshm Kharbanda v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And

Heard Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nagarjun Pandey, the learned State Counsel and Shri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.8 to 10.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the alleged detenue Master Arnav Kharbanda, aged about two years, through his father Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda, stating that the minor detenue is under detention of opposite party Nos.8 to 10, who are the Nani, Mausi and Mama of the alleged detenue. It has been stated in the petition that the mother of the child passed away on 15.04.2022. The child was taken away by the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 for ensuring his proper care but thereafter they continued to keep him in their custody.

3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the father of the child has remarried a widowed lady Smt. Ragini Kharbanda, who has a daughter aged five years from her first husband. Smt. Ragini Kharbanda has been appearing before this Court in person, she has attended the proceedings on the last date and she has expressed love and she will take proper care of the child.

4. A counter affidavit of opposite party No.9 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 inter alia stating that the father of the child had dropped him at the house of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 after death of the child's mother. The father 2 HABC No. 383 of 2023 has remarried and has a child from the second marriage. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the opposite party No.8 is a widow lady, the opposite party No.10- Mama is working as an Administrator and they are maintaining the child.

5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit.

6. The State has also filed a counter affidavit.

7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the father of the child inter alia stating that he has opened a savings bank account jointly with the child. He has taken a one time single Endowment Plan by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- with LIC in the name of the child. An undertaking has been given that the second wife of the child's father will take care of the child and she will make every effort to provide better future by providing best education to him. An affidavit by the second wife of the father child's supplementary affidavit. this effect has been annexed

8. The opposite party No.10 has filed an affidavit stating that the opposite party No.8 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Aditya Birla Capital towards getting an insurance policy in the name of the child. She has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Indian Bank in a joint account with the child. The opposite party No.8 has also purchased an insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the child. The opposite party No.9 has filed her affidavit stating that if custody of the child is allowed to continue with the opposite party Nos.8 to 10, the opposite party No.9 would not marry and she will devote her life for taking care of the child.

9. Another affidavit has been filed showing his financial status inter alia stating that he is practicing as an Advocate, he is earning about Rs.5,00,000/- per month, he is residing in an ancestral house, in which he has one-third share and that his mother has some rental income also, which constitute to well being of the family.

10. Yet another supplementary affidavit of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 was filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 on 29.07.2025 regarding financial status and concern of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 towards financial well being of the child. 3 HABC No. 383 of 2023

11. The father of the child has filed a third supplementary affidavit dated 22.07.2025 annexing therewith some photos taken with the child during his visit to the house of his father under an interim order passed by this Court. It has also been stated in this affidavit that the father had got admitted the child to St. Johns School, Lucknow where his sister Ms. Manvi Kharbanda is already studying.

12. On 12.11.2024, this matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but the mediation could not result in any settlement between the parties.

13. On 20.03.2025, this Court had passed a consent order providing that father of the child will visit the house of opposite party No.8 on weekends from 22.03.2025 and 29.03.2025.

14. On 03.04.2025, this court passed another consent order providing that father of the child may visit the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 as per his wish.

15. On 24.04.2025, this court passed the following order : "In deference detenue/child, respondent no.8 and respondent no.10 are present in person. the order dated 03.04.2025, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the child has visited the house of the respondent no.8 and 10 twice after the aforesaid order and the child was comfortable with him, which is not disputed by the respondent no.8 and 10, who are present in person. However they submit that they are ready to hand over the child to the father on week ends and in case thereafter he feels comfortable in his house they may handover the custody of the child on the next date, for which the father of the child has no objection to the same. He also submitted that whenever the child comes with the father, the respondents no.8 and 10 may also come to his house to stay. In view of above, the visiting rights granted by this court by means of the previous orders shall continue and as per statement of the respondents no.8 and 10 the father of the child will have liberty to keep the child with him on the week ends and on holidays and respondents no.8 and 10 undertakes to give custody subject to return and leave the child with the respondents no.8 and 10 thereafter. The father of the child gives an undertaking that he will 4 HABC No. 383 of 2023 abide by this order and shall not withdraw this petition unilaterally. The Registry shall also not receive any application for withdrawal of this petition. List on 27th of May, 2025, on which date the detenue and the parties, who are present today, shall appear again before this court."

16. Thereafter, the following order was passed on 27.05.2025: - "1. In deference to the order dated 03.04.2025, the corpus, the deponent and the respondents no.8 and 10 are present in person. Respondent no.9 is also present, whereas there was no order for her.

2. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the visiting rights granted by the previous order have been complied. However, there appear some issues between the parties in regard to welfare of child/corpus, however, after talks with the parties the respondents no.8 to 10 are ready to give the child to the deponent on weekends so that he may develop affinity and adjust with deponent, so that he may not have any difficulty in future in case the child lives with him.

3. In view of above, it is provided that on each Friday in the next five weeks, the deponent shall take the custody of the child and return to the respondent no.8 and 10 by Sunday evening or Monday morning.

4. The respondent no.8 and 10 undertake to give the custody of child on each Friday with the condition that he shall be returned by Sunday evening or Monday morning for the next five weeks for which the deponent is ready. He also undertakes to return the child by Saturday evening or Monday morning. He further undertakes to take due care of the child during the period in which the custody will be with him and he will not withdraw this petition in the intervening period.

5. It is further provided that, if required in interest of child, the deponent may call respondents and they may visit the home of the deponent.

6. With the aforesaid, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, list on 07.07.2025, on which date, the parties except respondent no.9 shall remain present in person.

7. As requested by learned counsel for the respondents, deponent undertakes to bring her wife also on the next date to know his view."

17. On 13.08.2025, this Court had talked to all the parties in Chamber and had passed the following order :- 5 HABC No. 383 of 2023 "1. In compliance of the previous order, the petitioner- Master Arnav Kharbanda along with his father Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda and the opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 10 have appeared before me in my Chamber along learned counsel Shri Alok Srivastava, Shri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for private respondent as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State. respective

2. Both the opposite parties have expressed their deep love, affection and concern towards the child. The opposite party Nos.8 to 10 do not dispute that being the father, the petitioner is the natural guardian of the child but they are apprehensive of lack of proper care of the child in the house of his father.

3. The father has appeared along with Smt. Ragini Kharbanda, his second wife and she has also expressed willingness to take care of the child along with her husband- the petitioner.

4. To alleviate the apprehensions of lack of proper care of the child in the house of his father, it is provided that the child be permitted to live with his father for a period of one week. The opposite party Nos.8 to 10 may visit the child in the house of his father on Sunday, 17th August 2025 between 04:00 PM and 05:00 PM. They can communicate with the child through video call daily for a duration of ten minutes in the evening at a mutually agreed time.

5. The parties will come again before this Court on 20.08.2025 on which date, the matter will be taken up in the Chamber immediately after rising from the Court."

18. Today again, the matter has been taken up in the Chamber when all the parties have appeared before this Court.

19. to 10 have expressed The opposite party Nos. 8 apprehension regarding lack of proper care of the child by his father and his step mother. However, the opposite party Nos. 8 to 10 as well as their learned Counsel, Shri Ramakar Shukla, could not dispute the fact that the petition has been filed seeking production of the child by father of the child and they could not dispute the legal right of the father to custody of the minor child.

20. The Court appreciates the love and concern of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 towards the child and their apprehension regarding proper care of the child by his father and the step mother but a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the 6 HABC No. 383 of 2023 Constitution of India has to be decided on the basis of legal rights of the parties, of course keeping in view the welfare of the child.

21. In Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari: (2019) 7 SCC 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "19. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the Court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. * * *

21. In the present case, the appellants are the sisters and brother of the mother Zelam who do not have any authority of law to have the custody of the minor child. Whereas as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the first respondent father is a natural guardian of the minor child and is having the legal right to claim the custody of the child. The entitlement of father to the custody of child is not disputed and the child being a minor aged 1½ years cannot express intelligent preferences. Hence, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the father, being the natural guardian, was justified in invoking the extraordinary remedy seeking custody of the child under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. * * *

26. The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though the provisions of the special statutes govern the rights of the parents or guardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in cases concerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for the court ought to be child interest and welfare of the child. * * *

35. The welfare of the child has to be determined owing to the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court cannot take a pedantic approach. In the present case, the first respondent has neither abandoned the child nor has deprived the child of a right to his love and affection. The circumstances were such that due to illness of the parents, the appellants had to take care of the child for some time. Merely because, the appellants being the relatives took care of the child for some time, they cannot retain the custody of the child. It is not the case of the appellants that the first respondent is unfit to take care of the child except contending that he has no female support to take care of the child. The first respondent is fully recovered from his illness and is now healthy and having the 7 HABC No. 383 of 2023 support of his mother and is able to take care of the child. * * *

37. Taking away the child from the custody of the appellants and handing over the custody of the child to the first respondent might cause some problem initially; but, in our view, that will be neutralised with the passage of time…."

22. Although the facts of each case have some difference, the facts of the present case have a great deal of similarity with the facts of Tejaswini Gaud (Supra), as in the present case, the mother of the child passed away on 15.04.2022, the child was taken away by the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 who are his nani (maternal grand-mother), mausi (mother's sister) and mama (mother's brother) for ensuring his proper care but thereafter they continued to keep him in their custody. The father of the child has remarried a widowed lady Smt. Ragini Kharbanda, who has a daughter aged five years from her first husband. Smt. Ragini Kharbanda has been appearing before this Court in person, she has attended the proceedings on the last date and she has expressed love and she will take proper care of the child. The child's father and his step mother are not suffering from any such infirmity as would jeopardize the welfare of the child.

23. The child came has come to the Court with his father and step mother, with whom he was residing for the past one week under the previous order dated 13.08.2025. The child appeared to be quite happy, although he went to the opposite party Nos.8 and 10 equally happily and lovingly. The opposite party Nos.8 to 10 stated that the child does not appear to be happy and healthy by his mere appearance but the Court does not find any truth in this statement. Perhaps, this statement has been made out of sheer love and affection of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 towards the child and out of their disappointment by being deprived of the company of the child for the past one week.

24. So far as the well being of the child is concerned, the father of the child as well as the child's step mother have assured this court that they will take proper care of the child. They have filed documents showing their financial capacity to take care of the child. They have already got the child admitted to the school in which their daughter is studying. 8 HABC No. 383 of 2023

25. The Court finds no good ground to assume that the father will not ensure his son's well being, more particularly, when his second wife Smt. Ragini Kharbanda has attended proceedings on the last date as well as today in the Chamber and has undertaken to ensure proper care of the child and to take all possible measures for his well being.

26. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the father of the child Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda is entitled to have custody of his minor son Master Arnav Kharbanda, who was aged about two years at the time of filing of this petition and who has now attained the age of four years.

27. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

28. It is provided that the minor child Master Arnav Kharbanda shall remain under the care and custody his father Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda.

29. The Court expects its sincere hope that the love of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 will not be adversely affected by the custody of the child being handed over to his father and the father of the child will also not create any undue hindrance in continuance of the relations of the child with the opposite party Nos.8 to 10, who are child's Nani, Mausi and Mama respectively. August 20, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nagarjun Pandey, the learned State Counsel and Shri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.8 to 10.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the alleged detenue Master Arnav Kharbanda, aged about two years, through his father Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda, stating that the minor detenue is under detention of opposite party Nos.8 to 10, who are the Nani, Mausi and Mama of the alleged detenue. It has been stated in the petition that the mother of the child passed away on 15.04.2022. The child was taken away by the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 for ensuring his proper care but thereafter they continued to keep him in their custody.

3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the father of the child has remarried a widowed lady Smt. Ragini Kharbanda, who has a daughter aged five years from her first husband. Smt. Ragini Kharbanda has been appearing before this Court in person, she has attended the proceedings on the last date and she has expressed love and she will take proper care of the child.

4. A counter affidavit of opposite party No.9 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 inter alia stating that the father of the child had dropped him at the house of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 after death of the child's mother. The father 2 HABC No. 383 of 2023 has remarried and has a child from the second marriage. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the opposite party No.8 is a widow lady, the opposite party No.10- Mama is working as an Administrator and they are maintaining the child.

5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit.

6. The State has also filed a counter affidavit.

7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the father of the child inter alia stating that he has opened a savings bank account jointly with the child. He has taken a one time single Endowment Plan by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- with LIC in the name of the child. An undertaking has been given that the second wife of the child's father will take care of the child and she will make every effort to provide better future by providing best education to him. An affidavit by the second wife of the father child's supplementary affidavit. this effect has been annexed

8. The opposite party No.10 has filed an affidavit stating that the opposite party No.8 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Aditya Birla Capital towards getting an insurance policy in the name of the child. She has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Indian Bank in a joint account with the child. The opposite party No.8 has also purchased an insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the child. The opposite party No.9 has filed her affidavit stating that if custody of the child is allowed to continue with the opposite party Nos.8 to 10, the opposite party No.9 would not marry and she will devote her life for taking care of the child.

9. Another affidavit has been filed showing his financial status inter alia stating that he is practicing as an Advocate, he is earning about Rs.5,00,000/- per month, he is residing in an ancestral house, in which he has one-third share and that his mother has some rental income also, which constitute to well being of the family.

10. Yet another supplementary affidavit of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 was filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 on 29.07.2025 regarding financial status and concern of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 towards financial well being of the child. 3 HABC No. 383 of 2023

11. The father of the child has filed a third supplementary affidavit dated 22.07.2025 annexing therewith some photos taken with the child during his visit to the house of his father under an interim order passed by this Court. It has also been stated in this affidavit that the father had got admitted the child to St. Johns School, Lucknow where his sister Ms. Manvi Kharbanda is already studying.

12. On 12.11.2024, this matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but the mediation could not result in any settlement between the parties.

13. On 20.03.2025, this Court had passed a consent order providing that father of the child will visit the house of opposite party No.8 on weekends from 22.03.2025 and 29.03.2025.

14. On 03.04.2025, this court passed another consent order providing that father of the child may visit the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 as per his wish.

15. On 24.04.2025, this court passed the following order : "In deference detenue/child, respondent no.8 and respondent no.10 are present in person. the order dated 03.04.2025, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the child has visited the house of the respondent no.8 and 10 twice after the aforesaid order and the child was comfortable with him, which is not disputed by the respondent no.8 and 10, who are present in person. However they submit that they are ready to hand over the child to the father on week ends and in case thereafter he feels comfortable in his house they may handover the custody of the child on the next date, for which the father of the child has no objection to the same. He also submitted that whenever the child comes with the father, the respondents no.8 and 10 may also come to his house to stay. In view of above, the visiting rights granted by this court by means of the previous orders shall continue and as per statement of the respondents no.8 and 10 the father of the child will have liberty to keep the child with him on the week ends and on holidays and respondents no.8 and 10 undertakes to give custody subject to return and leave the child with the respondents no.8 and 10 thereafter. The father of the child gives an undertaking that he will 4 HABC No. 383 of 2023 abide by this order and shall not withdraw this petition unilaterally. The Registry shall also not receive any application for withdrawal of this petition. List on 27th of May, 2025, on which date the detenue and the parties, who are present today, shall appear again before this court."

16. Thereafter, the following order was passed on 27.05.2025: - "1. In deference to the order dated 03.04.2025, the corpus, the deponent and the respondents no.8 and 10 are present in person. Respondent no.9 is also present, whereas there was no order for her.

2. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the visiting rights granted by the previous order have been complied. However, there appear some issues between the parties in regard to welfare of child/corpus, however, after talks with the parties the respondents no.8 to 10 are ready to give the child to the deponent on weekends so that he may develop affinity and adjust with deponent, so that he may not have any difficulty in future in case the child lives with him.

3. In view of above, it is provided that on each Friday in the next five weeks, the deponent shall take the custody of the child and return to the respondent no.8 and 10 by Sunday evening or Monday morning.

4. The respondent no.8 and 10 undertake to give the custody of child on each Friday with the condition that he shall be returned by Sunday evening or Monday morning for the next five weeks for which the deponent is ready. He also undertakes to return the child by Saturday evening or Monday morning. He further undertakes to take due care of the child during the period in which the custody will be with him and he will not withdraw this petition in the intervening period.

5. It is further provided that, if required in interest of child, the deponent may call respondents and they may visit the home of the deponent.

6. With the aforesaid, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, list on 07.07.2025, on which date, the parties except respondent no.9 shall remain present in person.

7. As requested by learned counsel for the respondents, deponent undertakes to bring her wife also on the next date to know his view."

17. On 13.08.2025, this Court had talked to all the parties in Chamber and had passed the following order :- 5 HABC No. 383 of 2023 "1. In compliance of the previous order, the petitioner- Master Arnav Kharbanda along with his father Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda and the opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 10 have appeared before me in my Chamber along learned counsel Shri Alok Srivastava, Shri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for private respondent as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State. respective

2. Both the opposite parties have expressed their deep love, affection and concern towards the child. The opposite party Nos.8 to 10 do not dispute that being the father, the petitioner is the natural guardian of the child but they are apprehensive of lack of proper care of the child in the house of his father.

3. The father has appeared along with Smt. Ragini Kharbanda, his second wife and she has also expressed willingness to take care of the child along with her husband- the petitioner.

4. To alleviate the apprehensions of lack of proper care of the child in the house of his father, it is provided that the child be permitted to live with his father for a period of one week. The opposite party Nos.8 to 10 may visit the child in the house of his father on Sunday, 17th August 2025 between 04:00 PM and 05:00 PM. They can communicate with the child through video call daily for a duration of ten minutes in the evening at a mutually agreed time.

5. The parties will come again before this Court on 20.08.2025 on which date, the matter will be taken up in the Chamber immediately after rising from the Court."

18. Today again, the matter has been taken up in the Chamber when all the parties have appeared before this Court.

19. to 10 have expressed The opposite party Nos. 8 apprehension regarding lack of proper care of the child by his father and his step mother. However, the opposite party Nos. 8 to 10 as well as their learned Counsel, Shri Ramakar Shukla, could not dispute the fact that the petition has been filed seeking production of the child by father of the child and they could not dispute the legal right of the father to custody of the minor child.

20. The Court appreciates the love and concern of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 towards the child and their apprehension regarding proper care of the child by his father and the step mother but a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the 6 HABC No. 383 of 2023 Constitution of India has to be decided on the basis of legal rights of the parties, of course keeping in view the welfare of the child.

21. In Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari: (2019) 7 SCC 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "19. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the Court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. * * *

21. In the present case, the appellants are the sisters and brother of the mother Zelam who do not have any authority of law to have the custody of the minor child. Whereas as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the first respondent father is a natural guardian of the minor child and is having the legal right to claim the custody of the child. The entitlement of father to the custody of child is not disputed and the child being a minor aged 1½ years cannot express intelligent preferences. Hence, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the father, being the natural guardian, was justified in invoking the extraordinary remedy seeking custody of the child under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. * * *

26. The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though the provisions of the special statutes govern the rights of the parents or guardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in cases concerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for the court ought to be child interest and welfare of the child. * * *

35. The welfare of the child has to be determined owing to the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court cannot take a pedantic approach. In the present case, the first respondent has neither abandoned the child nor has deprived the child of a right to his love and affection. The circumstances were such that due to illness of the parents, the appellants had to take care of the child for some time. Merely because, the appellants being the relatives took care of the child for some time, they cannot retain the custody of the child. It is not the case of the appellants that the first respondent is unfit to take care of the child except contending that he has no female support to take care of the child. The first respondent is fully recovered from his illness and is now healthy and having the 7 HABC No. 383 of 2023 support of his mother and is able to take care of the child. * * *

37. Taking away the child from the custody of the appellants and handing over the custody of the child to the first respondent might cause some problem initially; but, in our view, that will be neutralised with the passage of time…."

22. Although the facts of each case have some difference, the facts of the present case have a great deal of similarity with the facts of Tejaswini Gaud (Supra), as in the present case, the mother of the child passed away on 15.04.2022, the child was taken away by the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 who are his nani (maternal grand-mother), mausi (mother's sister) and mama (mother's brother) for ensuring his proper care but thereafter they continued to keep him in their custody. The father of the child has remarried a widowed lady Smt. Ragini Kharbanda, who has a daughter aged five years from her first husband. Smt. Ragini Kharbanda has been appearing before this Court in person, she has attended the proceedings on the last date and she has expressed love and she will take proper care of the child. The child's father and his step mother are not suffering from any such infirmity as would jeopardize the welfare of the child.

23. The child came has come to the Court with his father and step mother, with whom he was residing for the past one week under the previous order dated 13.08.2025. The child appeared to be quite happy, although he went to the opposite party Nos.8 and 10 equally happily and lovingly. The opposite party Nos.8 to 10 stated that the child does not appear to be happy and healthy by his mere appearance but the Court does not find any truth in this statement. Perhaps, this statement has been made out of sheer love and affection of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 towards the child and out of their disappointment by being deprived of the company of the child for the past one week.

24. So far as the well being of the child is concerned, the father of the child as well as the child's step mother have assured this court that they will take proper care of the child. They have filed documents showing their financial capacity to take care of the child. They have already got the child admitted to the school in which their daughter is studying. 8 HABC No. 383 of 2023

25. The Court finds no good ground to assume that the father will not ensure his son's well being, more particularly, when his second wife Smt. Ragini Kharbanda has attended proceedings on the last date as well as today in the Chamber and has undertaken to ensure proper care of the child and to take all possible measures for his well being.

26. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the father of the child Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda is entitled to have custody of his minor son Master Arnav Kharbanda, who was aged about two years at the time of filing of this petition and who has now attained the age of four years.

27. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

28. It is provided that the minor child Master Arnav Kharbanda shall remain under the care and custody his father Shri Bheeshm Kharbanda.

29. The Court expects its sincere hope that the love of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 will not be adversely affected by the custody of the child being handed over to his father and the father of the child will also not create any undue hindrance in continuance of the relations of the child with the opposite party Nos.8 to 10, who are child's Nani, Mausi and Mama respectively. August 20, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench