Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24321-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 174 of 2025 Appellant :- Master Shivansh Mishra Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Desh Deepak Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C.M. Application No.IA/1/2025: Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel for State-respondents. 2. There is delay of about 36 days in filing the instant appeal. 3. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. 4. Learned State Counsel representing the respondents does not have any objection, if delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. 5. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and in absence of any objection, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. (order on appeal) 6. The present intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment/order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the writ court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 94 of 2024, whereby, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, the Court has set out the operative part of the impugned judgment as under :- "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and the tender age of the child, it appears that in this case mother of the child died during the course of treatment just after delivery and child was kept by his grand-parents. The child cannot recognize his father as being in tender age and in case custody is transferred from the grand-parents to his father it will surely create miserable condition with the child, therefore, custody of child cannot be transferred in favour of the petitioner at this stage and their respective rights can also be decided before the learned court of Principal Judge, Family Court where Misc. Case in this regard is still pending. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.11 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that this petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the visiting rights of the petitioner as given by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2024 shall continue till the decision of respective rights of parties relating to the custody of child in the aforesaid case. " 7. As of now, the age of the minor is stated to be one year and eight months. At such a tender age, the arrangement as has been upheld by the writ Court, which, in our humble consideration, does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference. The visitation rights have been given to the appellant, who is free to utilize the same, so as to earn and develop all the sympathy and emotional bond of care with the minor child. The writ court has also left it open for the parties to go for custodial proceedings too. 8. That being the position, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court and the appeal is hereby dismissed. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench